University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice in a high -performing urban school

(USC Thesis Other)

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice in a high -performing urban school

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CALIFORNIA TEACHER EVALUATION AND IMPROVED TEACHER
PRACTICE IN A HIGH PERFORMING URBAN SCHOOL
by
Elsa Hilda Mendoza
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
August 2005
Copyright 2005 Elsa Hilda Mendoza
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3196858
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 3196858
Copyright 2006 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.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the entire Rossier School of Education staff,
whose dedication and support have guided me through my long quest for a higher
education. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr. Stuart E. Gothold, whose
professionalism, knowledge, and support has given me confidence to move forward.
His prompt and insightful feedback sustained and guided a long and sometimes
challenging process.
I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. James Kincaid and Dr.
David Marsh for their encouragement, guidance, and support. Dr. Kincaid’s
confidence in my ability, belief in my potential, and encouragement not only of my
endeavors but also of my family’s, has positively impacted our lives. Thank you and
Ms. Nita Moots Kincaid. And thanks to our thematic dissertation group for helping
me advance in the study.
I am also very thankful to the following people who indirectly, but
substantially, contributed to my progress during my doctoral program: Everyone at
Soledad Enrichment Action Charter School; the Los Angeles Unified School District
Local District 6 school support staff; my supervisor, Dr. Shelley Weston; the whole
staff at my school, Odyssey High School; and my dear friends Julie, Angie, and Lyli.
I am indebted to my parents, Porfirio and Margarita Mendoza, and my sister,
Karina Mendoza, for their unconditional love, support and guidance. I want to thank
my partner, Evaristo Cardona, and son, Andres Cardona, whose unconditional love
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
and patience have motivated me to continue when there was no light at the end of the
tunnel. Andy, mom is finally done with her homework, for now!
Last but not least, I want to dedicate this dissertation in loving memory of Dr.
Judith Grayson, who saw potential in my abilities at when I needed guidance. Thank
you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... ii-iii
List of Tables.....................................................................................................................v
Abstract............................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................... 58
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS............................................................................................68
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS......................................................................................................... 115
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................125
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey: Teacher Evaluation Process................................................... 132
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions................................................................137
Appendix C: Administration Interview Questions.................................................... 141
Appendix D: Specific Documents Review................................................................144
Appendix E: Document Review Analysis.................................................................145
Appendix F: Observation Template.......................................................................... 146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of Years as a Teacher......................................................................69
Table 2. Number of Years at this Site.........................................................................69
Table 3. Teacher Survey Responses Questions 3-6................................................... 70
Table 4. Significant and Positive Correlations Between the Number of
Years as a Teacher, Awareness and Understanding of the
Teacher Evaluation...............................................................................71
Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Teacher Survey Responses to
Selected Questions Number 7, 8, 10 and
14........................................................................................................... 83
Table 6. Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions Number
7, 8, lOand Fourteen.............................................................................84
Table 7. Significant and Positive Correlation Between the Classroom
Observation Frequency and Selected Questions Number 8,
10 and 14...............................................................................................85
Table 8. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey
Responses to Questions Number 17, 18, 20 and 21...........................86
Table 9. Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions Number 17,
18, 20 and 21........................................................................................ 87
Table 10. Significant and Positive Correlation Between the Classroom
Observation Frequency and Having Discussions about Teaching.. .89
Table 11. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses to
Questions Number 35, 38, 39 and 43................................................. 95
Table 12. Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions
Number 35, 38, 39 and 43................................................................... 96
Table 13. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses to
Questions Number 47, 50 and 51.......................................................100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14. Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions Number 47,
50, and 51.............................................................................................. 101
Table 15. Significant and Positive Correlation Between Believing All Students
Can Achieve and Questions Number 47 and 50................................. 101
Table 16. Mean and Standard Deviation Teacher Survey Responses to Questions
Number 12, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29..................................................108
Table 17. Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions
12, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29................................................................109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to describe and explore the current teacher
evaluation process and other factors that impact teacher practices in a high
performing urban school setting. It was not known whether the application of the
teacher evaluation process had an impact on teacher practice, nor what factors other
than the process were affecting teacher practice. The school selected had improved
its Academic Performance Index (API) in the last three consecutive years and was
located in the inner city section of Los Angeles.
The methodology used was a qualitative case study that was part of a larger
thematic dissertation effort. The triangulation efforts included quantitative teacher
surveys, teacher and administrator interviews, and field observations.
The case study discovered that the current teacher evaluation process was
known by the staff but was not regarded as being effective in impacting instructional
practice in the classroom. Instead, other features were highlighted in the various data
collection tools, and the trends in the findings included a core student-centered
culture that led to significant features that did impact the instructional program of the
school. Among the trends highlighted were professional development, rigorous
curriculum, and distributive leadership.
Overall, the data collected from this case study indicates that the mandated
teacher evaluation process is ineffective in truly impacting instructional practice in
the classroom. Other prominent factors were revealed, and recommendations given
for modifications to the current mandated teacher evaluation process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this era of high stakes accountability, the different components that are
essential to school-wide reforms are being reexamined. Teacher evaluation is one of
the areas that has become of interest again to various school stakeholders.
Specifically, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Congress
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and
with federal funds came a greater accountability component. While California was
ahead of the legislation, with its own accountability system enacted in April 1999,
the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) states, “California school districts
have not developed competent systems to evaluate and assist ineffective teachers and
to terminate those who are unable to meet the district’s mission” (Riley, Fusano,
Munk, & Peterson, 2002, p. viii).
This lack of ability to terminate incompetent teachers, which appears to be in
contrast to the strict accountability that schools face, is further evident in statistical
data demonstrating that students from low socio-economic backgrounds similar to
those in California are able to achieve success in higher rates. For example, in 2003,
only 21 % of California’s fourth-graders scored “proficient” on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading exam, while 27% of Texas’s
fourth-grade students scored at the same category.
Similar results are evident in the mathematics portion. 25% of California
students scored “proficient” on the mathematics portion of the exam, while 33% of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Texas students scored proficient (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a).
While these differences might be small, they have remained consistent over the last
few years, making it appear as though the problem lies in the state’s instructional
program and/or with its teachers instead of the students’ socio-economic status.
A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform (1983), a national
report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, publicized
America’s inadequate educational system. Among other things, the report’s
recommendations indicated that teacher’s effectiveness is an area that needs to be
addressed. This opened the door for several studies and reports to introduce models
that would improve the teacher evaluation process.
Several reports were then published to provide more in-depth purposes and
rationales for formal effective teacher evaluations. A report by Wise, Darling-
Hammond, McLaughlin, and Bernstein (1984) lists four basic purposes of teacher
evaluation: individual staff development; school improvement; individual personnel
decisions; and school status decisions, with the first two focusing on improvement,
and the last two focusing on accountability. As accountability for student content
standards and teaching standards took centerl stage in the late 1990s and into the new
century throughout the country, “Fostering improvement in teacher evaluation
systems means balancing individual and institutional demands” (Stronge, 1997, p. 3).
Statement of the Problem
Standards-based instruction along with the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001
has revolutionized the focus of education from input-based accountability to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance-based accountability (Goertz & Duffy, 2003), with serious
consequences for a lack of demonstrated student achievement. Consequences are
mostly geared towards individual schools, which could be subject to state takeovers,
and towards students, who may not be able to earn a high school diploma due to
required exit exams. But few consequences for teachers (Goertz & Duffy, 2001) are
evident, indicating a lack of linkage between school accountability and teacher
evaluations.
While “seventy years of empirical research on teacher evaluation shows that
current practices do not improve teachers” (Peterson, 1995, p. 14), no major changes
to the evaluation mandates have occurred. A definite, effective method is yet to be
defined, and “a continuing failure to resolve the tension between teacher supervision
and evaluation has created major difficulties in the practice of instructional
supervision since the 1920s” (Nolan & Hoover, 2004, p. 25).
In addition, several studies have found that throughout the country teachers
find several different faults with teacher evaluation systems throughout the country.
According to Wolf (1973), teachers have expressed mistrust of the general
evaluation procedure, while Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, and Bernstein
(1984) found that the systems lacked uniformity, teachers were not supportive of the
system in place, and most teachers felt that administrators lacked training in
evaluating.
Peterson and Chenoweth’s (1992) study concluded that current evaluation
practices were ineffective because teachers had little control over and involvement in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their own evaluation, while Johnson’s (1990) earlier study reported that teachers
resented having to develop their own goals since this placed a burden on them to do
so. Inconsistencies are common throughout the numerous studies on teacher
evaluations.
For their part, the 1997 introduction of the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program (CSRD) and Title 1, Part F, of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act 2001 have impacted student achievement. Both programs,
which focus on raising student achievement by employing proven methods and
strategies, have introduced specific teaching practices and strategies for teachers to
use. There is extensive evidence that reform-based teaching practices produce
student achievement (Ginsburg-Block & Fantuzzo, 1998; Von Seeker, 2002;
Wenglinsky, 2002), but that this is not necessarily tied into current teacher
evaluation models.
It is not known whether the application of the teacher evaluation process has
an impact on teacher practice, nor is it known what factors other than the teacher
evaluation process affect teacher classroom practice that are tied to student
achievement. These two factors constitute the overall problem of the study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to describe and explore the current teacher
evaluation process and other factors that impact teacher practices at a high
performing urban school setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
The areas that were studied included teachers’ knowledge and perception of
the teacher evaluation process, the extent to which the administration has actively
participated in the formal evaluation process as mandated by the California
Education Code, on-going teacher supervision by administrators, teachers’
perception of school efforts as they may have led to school improvement, teachers’
perception of the school culture, and teachers’ own efficacy.
Exploratory Questions
The following exploratory questions guided the study:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluations?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluations?
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
The results of this study can be used by instructional teams, which should
include key stakeholders such as teachers and school administrators when evaluating,
modifying, and eventually implementing a more practical evaluation and assessment
system.
The results in collaboration with similar case studies can be used to present to
policymakers what a high performing, secondary school is utilizing to evaluate its
staff. The policymakers can then use this information when modifying the current
state mandates on teacher evaluations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
In addition, teacher preparation programs can begin looking at the areas that
new candidates should be exposed to as they prepare to enter the teaching profession.
Knowing what teachers might be evaluated on would be an incentive to begin
implementing strategies at the start of their careers, and therefore likely to make
them more successful in their first few years of teaching. Also, this study will
identify barriers and challenges that can impede improvement of teacher practices
through the use of the teacher evaluation tool.
Limitations
The study is fundamentally limited in the following areas:
1. The collection sample was dependent on voluntary participation.
2. Primary methods of collecting data from teachers and school principal
were primarily through observations and interviews, which contain
inherent weaknesses.
3. The interviews were only a snapshot of the school at the time the
observations and interviews were conducted.
1. The site level administrators and teachers selected for the study may not
be representative of other staff in the school district, therefore limiting the
generalizability of the findings.
Delimitations
For practicability reasons, the scope of the study was delimited in several
ways:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. The case study only reviewed one school’s teaching faculty and
three school administrators, which will delimit any generalizations.
2. The time span was delimited to a short amount of time,
approximately five months.
Assumptions
The study made the following basic assumptions:
1. The faculty and administrators were honest and truthful in their
responses.
2. The case study assumed teachers and the administrators were
knowledgeable about their current evaluation system.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API)
The cornerstone of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999.
The purpose of the API is to measure the academic performance and growth of
schools. It is a numeric index or scale that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of
1000. A school’s score on the API is an indicator of a school’s performance level.
The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school’s growth is
measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal. A school’s base year
API is subtracted from its growth API to determine how much the school has
improved in a year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1266, it is an initiative to provide formative
assessment and individualized support based on assessment information for
beginning teachers. It is co-administered by the California Department of Education
and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)
It consists of a set of six standards intended to guide teachers as they define
and develop their practice.
Education Code
The set of laws establishing policy and procedures regarding education in the
state of California.
Evaluation
The standard dictionary definition explains it as a spoken or written statement
of the value, quality, importance, extent, or condition of something. Regarding
teacher evaluation, it is the summative assessment of a teacher’s practice during a
given school year.
High Performing Urban School
A school located in an urban school district that has exceeded its API growth
target for a minimum of three consecutive years, and whose similar school ranking is
7 or above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Instructional Strategy
Pedagogy and methodology used by teachers to teach students what they
need to know to be able to perform at each grade level according to the State
academic content standards.
Peer Assistance Review (PAR)
Created by the legislature in April 1999, it was created to serve as a critical
feedback mechanism that allows exemplary teachers to assist certain permanent and
beginning teachers in the areas of subject matter knowledge, teaching strategies, and
teaching methods.
Portfolio
A collection of work produced by a teacher designed to demonstrate the
teacher’s talents. Portfolios are constructed by teachers in order to highlight and
demonstrate their knowledge and skills in teaching.
Professional Development
According to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), refers to
activities designed to enhance the professional growth of teachers. Such activities
may include individual development, continuing education, and in-service education,
as well as curriculum writing, peer collaboration, study groups, and peer coaching or
mentoring.
Standards Based Instruction
Refers to the process of using standards to guide teaching. It includes
defining content standards in terms of what students should know and be able to do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
in academic subjects. It also includes defining benchmarks for progress as well as
indicators that serve as the knowledge or skill, which students must demonstrate for
proficiency.
Stull
Originally enacted in 1971, the California Stull Bill (AB 293) was written
with the intent to institute a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the
performance of certificated personnel within each public school district in the state.
Supervision
The standard dictionary definition explains it as the act of
being in charge of a group of people engaged in some activity, and the action of
keeping order or ensuring that they carry out their task adequately. Regarding
teacher evaluation, it is the formative assessments that take place throughout the
school year designed to help teachers improve their practice.
Teacher Practice
The collective group of instructional strategies used by teachers to teach
students what they need to know and be able to do at each grade level.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the paper is organized into four chapters. Chapter 2
contains: (a) review of the literature and background leading to teacher evaluation
policies, (b) governance and accountability, (c) state and local teacher evaluation
policies, and (d) efforts to improve teacher practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3 describes the instruments and methods used for gathering the data
for this study, as well as the procedures used in constructing the questionnaire and
processing of the data. In addition, the study sample and population are discussed in
this chapter.
A discussion of the findings in relation to the questions posed in this chapter
is presented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 presents the summary, and offers a conclusion and implications of
this study. Recommendations based on the findings are provided as well.
A bibliography with all the relevant resources and appendices conclude the
dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the literature and research relevant to
teacher evaluations and factors affecting it. Specifically, it is organized in the
following manner: (a) review of the literature and background leading to teacher
evaluation policies, (b) governance and accountability, (c) state and local teacher
evaluation policies, (d) Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four organizational perspectives,
and (e) efforts to improve teacher practice.
The topics presented here are critical in understanding current teacher
evaluation policies and the challenges that exist in making modifications or creating
alternatives that would result in effective instructional methods being used in
classrooms. Also, the literature review will indicate if there is a need for further
writing on the topic and implications for further studies.
Teacher Evaluation Policies History
Teacher supervision and evaluation have been of public interest since the
early 19th century (Pajak, 2000). Nolan and Hoover (2004) and Sullivan and Glanz
(1999) provide a comprehensive review of the evolution of teacher supervision and
evaluation. The teacher evaluation movements have transformed the evaluator from
inspector to evaluator and, finally, to counselor. In addition, the various trends
among teacher evaluations include school efficiency, progressive evaluation,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
scientific supervision, supervision as leadership, and clinical supervision (Sullivan &
Glanz, 1999; Nolan & Hoover, 2004).
In general, three types of criteria have been utilized to assess teacher
effectiveness in the last century, along with various general rationales for using such
measures. The three types are ratings, systematic observations, and standardized
achievement tests (Popham, 1971). While in recent times, teacher evaluation
policies have mostly remained static, they nevertheless have evolved from what they
were in the times when American schools consisted of one small red schoolhouse.
School Administrators as Inspectors
In the early 19th century, an era when education was still relatively new to the
masses, inspectors were hired to oversee its effectiveness. Inspectors included
ministers, schoolmasters, and distinguished citizens who might not have had formal
training to inspect schools (Nolan & Hoover, 2004). As the century ended, new
dimensions of more professional inspections were authorized, to be conducted by
school superintendents.
Methods of supervision included strict control and close supervision of
school facilities and materials used (Glanz, 1998), and instructional inspection
included ensuring the bare minimums of a conducive learning environment.
Unfortunately, a great number of supervisors using inspectional practices did not
favorably view the competency of teachers and most “supervisory methods which
relied on inspection based on intuition rather than technical or scientific knowledge,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
were practiced widely” (Sullivan & Glanz, 1999, p. 8).
School Administrators as Teacher Evaluators
School Efficiency Ratings
a
In the early 20 century, teacher supervision and evaluation was influenced
by Federick Taylor’s efficiency movement (Glanz, 1998). Efficiency philosophies
combined with increasing bureaucratization led to rating scales being utilized to
document teacher effectiveness and supervision. The assumption was made that
scientists could study teachers who were effective and whose characteristics could
provide descriptors for a rating scale. As Nolan and Hoover write, “The number of
th
teacher rating scales grew tremendously throughout the first quarter of the 20
century, despite very little agreement concerning what constituted effective
teaching” (2004, p. 23).
The ratings methods consisted of assessing a teacher’s instructional ability
through the use of the ratings. In essence, the school administrator became a formal
evaluator of the instructional program.
Among the various complaints of this procedure was the subjectivity of the
rater. Other concerns include the effectiveness of the ratings procedure, as it did
“not correlate particularly well with measures of pupil growth” (Popham, 1971, p. 9).
Progressive Evaluation
Nolan and Hoover (2004) indicate that the social efficiency model of teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
evaluation came under attack under the Progressive Era in the 1920s. Progressive
supervision was profoundly influenced by Dewey’s (1929) theories of democratic
and scientific thinking.
Progressive supervision evolved from the concepts of inquiry and democratic
processes into the belief that teacher responded better to collaboration, group
processes, and experimentation, instead of general direct supervision. According to
Sullivan and Glanz, “Democratic supervision in particular, implied that teachers,
curriculum specialists, and supervisors, would cooperate to improve instruction”
(1999, p. 15).
This shift marked the beginning of an ongoing conflict between the dual roles
of school administrators as supervisors and evaluators, as the evaluation of teachers
evolved from a process of inspection to that of instructional supervision.
Scientific Supervision
From the 1930s into the 1950s, the educational field concluded that more
scientific approaches, with their emphasis on efficiency and productivity, were
needed in teacher evaluations. According to Barr (1931), scientific supervision
included the evaluator formulating objectives, followed by measurement surveys to
determine the status of the school and to measure the practice of supervision using
methods of science. In fact, Nolan and Hoover (2004) state:
Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the rush to improve student
learning (especially in mathematics and science) led to an increasing
emphasis on the role of supervisor as the important school change.
Collaboration and cooperation were seen as less important than putting
innovations into practice, (p. 24)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Most notably, the importance and relevance of scientific supervision to today’s
concerns is the fact that in this trend of teacher evaluation, improvement of
instruction was believed to lead to increased student achievement. In addition,
classroom observations became the key measure of evaluation.
Systematic Observations
Classroom observations, still a very active part of current teacher evaluation
models, began to be the significant way in which to evaluate teachers across the
country. Several studies in fact indicated that there was a positive correlation
between particular teacher behaviors observed and increased student growth
(Cheong, 1971; Soar, 1968).
School Administrators as Counselors/Collaborators
In the 1960s and 1970s, society’s political and social revolutions had a major
impact not only on the instruction that was offered in schools, but also on public
schools’ administration. Criticism of schools’ educational practices and
bureaucracies were pervasive (Sullivan & Glanz, 1999), and educators along with
legislators reviewed current evaluation procedures for teachers.
Leadership Supervision
Sullivan & Glanz (1999) indicate that in a leadership supervision model of
teacher evaluation, a school administrator would: (a) develop mutually acceptable
goals for administrators and teachers; (b) extend cooperative and democratic
methods of supervision; (c) improve classroom instruction; (d) promote research into
educational problems; and (e) promote professional leadership of the school staff.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Empowerment was the apparent theme behind this new vision of teacher evaluation.
This type of evaluation would not gain popularity until several years later.
Clinical Supervision
The more formal trend of clinical supervision came about in the late
1960s and 1970s, and helped to revolutionize the teacher evaluation process.
This new approach, a formal process of collaboration (Glanz, 2000) bom from
dissatisfaction with the traditional educational practices, focused more on
collaboration and collegiality between the principal and teacher, so that the
process became less dictatorial.
Much of the theoretical literature on clinical supervision developed by
Cognan (1973) and Goldhammer (1969) indicate a model in which the school
administrator acts as a colleague to the teacher and works on creating a tmsting
relationship. The supervisor then provides intellectual services and resources to
improve instructional practices and student achievement.
Clinical supervision had its critics (Bolin & Panaritis, 1992), due to the
inadequate supervisory knowledge and skills of practitioners, along with the
tremendous time it took to work collaboratively with staff. Nevertheless, clinical
supervision laid the groundwork for increased collaboration with staff, and for staff
participation in decision making in and out of the classroom.
Due to current federal and state mandates, new approaches to teacher
evaluations are emerging quite clearly. These new approaches to teacher evaluation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
include, but are not limited to, differential systems, multi-year cycles, and an
evaluation system based on multiple data sources. These and other approaches will
be discussed further in the following sections.
Governance and Accountability
A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform (1983) set the
agenda for the next 2 decades: the modem school reform movement, which,
according to Danielson (2001), emerged in three phases. The first phase included
dramatic changes in the academic programs of schools, graduation requirements, and
changes in legislation dealing with teacher evaluations. The second phase, which
began in the early 1990s and continues to this day, focuses on standards to assess
both students and teachers. The third phase grew out of the 1996 publication of
What Matters Most: Teaching for America’ s Future (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future), and has brought forward the concept of teacher
quality and its link to student achievement.
Beyond Danielson’s (2001) phases, a new phase has emerged as a
combination of the phases mentioned above and is tied to the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2001, with its mandated standards-based accountability systems.
This has revolutionized the focus of education from input-based accountability to
performance-based accountability (Goertz & Duffy, 2003).
The new policy challenges the status of current educational strategies, but
most importantly, it addresses the need to demonstrate academic progress of all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
students, including minority and special education students. Some highlights of the
NCLB include:
1. Staffing requirements
a. Requirements for “highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals” to
be in place by 2006. States were allowed to define highly qualified
for themselves, but the policy has its own requirements for teachers,
which do not include emergency or provisional teaching credential
holders.
b. With regard to paraprofessionals, NCLB requires at least two years of
college study (60 units) or an Associate’s Degree or higher and
having “passed a rigorous state or local assessment measuring
knowledge and ability to assist in the instruction of reading, writing,
and mathematics” (ACSA, 2002, p. 3).
2. Testing Requirements
a. States must establish a single statewide accountability system that
aligns with state content standards.
b. Students must be tested annually in reading/language arts and math in
grades 3rd through 8th and once in grades 10th through 12th.
c. 95% of students in each grade level must participate in the testing,
which must include Special Education and Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students. This 95% participation requirement can now be an
average obtained over a three-year period.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
3. Adequate Yearly Progress
a. Although each state can define yearly progress, “NCLB tightens the
definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) to include annual state
measurable objectives for improved achievement by all students as
well as subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students”
(ACSA, 2002, p. 4).
b. Schools that receive Title 1 funds and do not achieve AYP goals for
consecutive years can be identified as Program Improvement (PI)
Schools. These schools must then participate in an intervention/
sanction process that becomes more severe for each year that a school
does not achieve its AYP, eventually leading to reconstitution and/or
a charter school status.
4. New Funding
New funding, through which “California will receive $836 million in new federal
NCLB funds for a total of $5.4 billion” (ACSA, 2002, p. 1), has become
available. These funds include the following grants:
2. The Disadvantaged Children Meet High Academic Standards
3. Student Reading Skills Improvement
4. Comprehensive School Reform
5. Teacher and Principal Quality Training
6. Enhancing Education Through Technology State
7. Safe and Drug Free Schools
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
8. Twenty-First Century Community Learning
9. State Assessments
NCLB legislation is seen as the nationalization of education policy (Elmore,
2003) and is meant to cause positive school changes in a nationwide effort, but in
reality, this federal policy falls short of doing so. The basis for demonstrating
academic improvement is unfortunately the core component of this policy, and is a
cause for great concern. While NCLB stresses accountability, it does so by
incorporating a high-stakes testing strategy in which individual schools and specific
teachers maybe rewarded or sanctioned, depending on student test scores achieved.
The requirements of NCLB are based on Texas’s experience of utilizing a
high-stake strategy, resulting in boosting student achievement and narrowing the
achievement gap between different ethnic and socio-economic groups. As one study
states, “The Texas experience is cited as justification for extending this strategy from
state to federal policy” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000). Yet the
assumption that this accountability system can be easily implemented on a national
basis and that all states can demonstrate academic achievement for all students is
questioned by it opponents.
In fact, many critics of high-stakes testing question a mandate that is intended
to create and sustain real change. A small school in Texas, for example, had 93% of
its senior students passed all parts of the Texas High School Exit Exam in 1998, but
only a year later, only 62% passed (Morse, 2000). Some critics also report that
research has shown that intense coaching can lead to short-term increases in student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
test scores, but long-term remembrance of concepts seems to disappear soon after for
most students (Morse, 2000).
In addition, researchers have also found that the sanctions and rewards
associated with high-stakes testing have led to disparities in both the instructional
methods used to teach students and the content children are taught. McNeil and
Valenzuela (2001) conclude that Texas’s accountability system has fragmented the
curriculum in non-white, poor communities and “widens the gap between public
education provided for poor and minority children and that of children in
traditionally higher-scoring students” (p. 133).
Recently, there has been a growing national backlash against testing from
educators and parents alike:
Parents have joined their children in boycotting high-stakes testing. In early
2001,27 busloads of parents-part of a crowd of more than 1, 500 people
marched on the New York State Capitol to protest what they believed to be
excessive reliance on state tests to evaluate student learning and make
promotion decisions. Similar protests by parents and students have been
held in Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, California and Florida. (Voke, 2002)
Educators’ and parents’ complaints include the lost instructional time that occurs due
to increased time spent on testing, while others question the validity of the results.
The heavy emphasis on nationally norm-referenced standardized testing also
attracts criticism from those who question “using one test to measure success or to
sanction students, schools, or districts,” finding it to be “an inappropriate use of one
single instrument” (Voke, 2002, p. 1). While many politicians argue that this
approach is necessary to bring immediate, influential changes, others argue that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
“high-stakes strategies are detrimental to the educational process and exacerbate
educational inequalities” (Voke, 2002, p. 1).
Notably, this new emphasis on accountability lacks a direct link to the teacher
evaluation process, thus making the process appear insignificant to improving
student achievement. Other factors, including governance factors, also directly or
indirectly relate to the teacher evaluation process.
Influence of Governance Factors
Various governance factors have had a range of impacts on the teacher
evaluation process in California. These impacts differ from district to district in the
state, and range from very little impact and influence to heavy pressure, essentially
driving the entire process. But among the various factors that influence the process
of teacher evaluation, none has such an impact on teacher evaluations as collective
bargaining, and the teacher tenure code.
Collective Bargaining
A historical description is helpful in explaining why teacher unions now
wield an enormous influence on educational legislation, including the teacher
evaluation process. The first legislative act that granted California school employees
a formal process of expressing their priorities was the George Brown Act, passed by
the California legislature in 1961 (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2003). The act
required employers to “meet and confer” with employee representatives and
essentially opened the door for school employees to express their concerns in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
formal setting. School employees were covered under the act until the passage of the
Assembly Bill (AB) 1474, the Winton Act of 1965.
With the help of the California Teachers Association (CTA), the California
legislation passed the Winton Act (Decker, 2001). The Winton Act also required
kindergarten through community college educators to “meet and confer” on subjects
of mutual interest.
The act further required a proportional representation of the organization and
the creation of the Certificated Employee Councils (CECs). While non-members
were un-represented, no requirement to bargain over terms of employment was
mandated for any school district (Barrett, 2004). Presumably, the “legislative goal of
the Winton Act was to protect the public school system from wasteful, highly
partisan contests between employers and employees” (Riley, Fusano, Munk &
Peterson, 2002, p. 4), yet the act was quite feeble, and many thought that it was
designed to forestall collective bargaining (Decker, 2001).
The most critical legislative act for collective bargaining was the 1975 Senate
Bill (SB) 160, the Educational Employee Relations Act or the “Rodda Act,” named
after the bill’s sponsor, former state Senator A1 Rodda. The act legalized collective
bargaining for kindergarten through community college employees. The measure
replaced the “Winton Act” and made teacher unions a force to be reckoned with.
Specifically, the Rodda Act:
Establishes the right of public school employees to choose organizations
that will represent them in their employment dealings with school districts.
In short, it gives employees the right to unionize, and it requires school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
districts to recognize the duly elected unions as the sole bargaining agents
and to negotiate only with them. (Howell & Miller, 1999, p. 23)
Howell & Miller (1999) further describe the collective bargaining process in
California’s educational system, which helps to explain its effect on the teacher
evaluation process. Collective bargaining is described as a process of negotiating a
legal contract between a school district and a bargaining unit of employees that
shares a community of interests, which in the realm of education would be teachers,
paraprofessionals and other school staff. The school board, the employer, and the
bargaining unit must convene every three years to negotiate the terms for working in
the school district.
As Howell and Miller explain, “Once the bargaining units are determined,
each unit may elect a union as its exclusive representative by majority vote . . . when
exclusive representatives have been identified, bilateral good faith negotiations must
begin” (1999, p. 1). The actual negotiation process begins when the initial proposal
comes form either the union or district (Howell & Miller, 1999). Public comment,
otherwise known as “sunshine,” is invited, and might result in revisions, adoption of
the initial proposal, or a continuation of negotiations.
Negotiations can be lengthy due to the fact that they can lead to mediation,
further negotiations, fact finding, and can eventually lead to more mediation. If
process failure occurs, possible results include work stoppage or an unfair practice
charge from either party for violating the law, leading to the involvement of an
appointed board that can handle the dispute, the Public Employment Relations Board
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
(PERB). Thus, “[although PERB’s function is interpretive, not legislative, it has
become a quasi-judicial body that is a powerful force in the politics of education in
California” (Howell & Miller, 1999, p. 5). In fact, PERB’s decision could eventually
lead to a court injunction and even contempt of court, leading to fines and possible
jail time for members of either party if its ruling is not accepted.
After negotiations, a tentative agreement can be created, which is then open
to a public comments session regarding the fiscal effects of the tentative agreement.
If there is not much public dissention, the agreement contract can then be signed by
both parties.
The scope of negotiations is limited to matters relating to hours of
employment, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. Terms and
conditions of employment are defined in the California Government Code as:
1. Health and welfare benefits
2. Leaves of absence
3. Transfer and reassignment policies
4. Safety conditions of employment
5. Class size
6. Evaluation procedures
7. Union or association security
8. Grievance processing procedures
9. Layoff of probationary certificated school district employees
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
10. Alternative compensation or benefits. (California Government Code
Section §3543.2a)
The subjects for bargaining are categorized as mandatory, permissive, and
prohibited. Mandatory items are areas that must be negotiated; permissive items are
topics that can be negotiated if both parties agree to do so; and prohibited items are
those that cannot be negotiated, such as the due process for disciplining teachers
(Howell & Miller, 1999). Teacher unions also have the right to consult on “the
definition of educational objectives, the determination of the content of courses and
curriculum, and the selection of textbooks to the extent such matters are within the
discretion of the public school employee” (California Government Code Section
§3543.2). Beyond this, all matters that are not specified may not be a subject of
meeting and negotiating (California Government Code Section §3543.2).
One of the most time consuming terms of this code is the required grievance
process. The grievance procedure refers to the process that must be followed by a
teacher or the union to seek a remedy of a claimed contract violation (Riley, et al.,
2002) and varies from district to district. A typical example is “a grievance over the
‘interpretation, application, or violation’ of an existing contract” (Howell & Miller,
1999, p. 5).
Howell & Miller (1999) further describe the grievance process and why it
might be an obstacle to the teacher evaluation process if this process is not followed
to the letter. The grievance process begins with a meeting in which the supervisor
describes the problem, after which the employee can file a written grievance alleging
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
that a contract violation has occurred. Grievance mediation then occurs, and an
unsettled case is then reviewed by a Superintendent or a designee. Eventually, a
continuing unsettled case goes to the school board for a final decision. Arbitration is
another option that can occur. An outside party can hear the case in question, and if
the contract specifies a binding arbitration, then the party’s recommendation is
considered final.
Although the collective bargaining legislation “has changed little in the past
decade” (Howell & Miller, 1999, p. 32), its scope has increased to include a wide
range of items that have a significant impact on educational issues, such as teacher
evaluations (Dawson & Billingsley, 2000). Collective bargaining has also created
opportunities for a big business to flourish: teacher unions.
On a state level, teacher unions are now a powerful political force, with the
money and clout to influence elections. Among the biggest teachers unions in the
state are the California Teacher Association (CTA), an affiliate of the National
Teachers Association (NTA); and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), an
affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
The teacher unions’ influence is deeply apparent. As one study states, “The
California Teacher Associations (CTA) ... spent $15 million to defeat a school-
choice ballot initiative in 1994 and $30 million for the same reason in 2000” (Riley,
et al., 2002, p. 1). CTA currently has over 300,000 members and is active in the
almost of the state’s school districts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
At a local level, the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), which represents
over 35,000 teachers, enjoys a huge influence in educational matters in the second
largest district in the country, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
Created in 1970, 5 years before collective bargaining was even legalized, UTLA was
formed from the various organizations that represented teachers and support service
personnel throughout LAUSD. Among these organizations were the merged
American Federation of Teachers Local #1021 and the Association of Classroom
Teachers of Los Angeles, and its affiliates from the California Teacher Associations
(CTA), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federal of
Teachers (AFL-CIO) (UTLA, 2004).
Influential among its members, the union called for a strike in 1970 and won
its first teacher contract after 5 weeks on the picket lines. Due to the lack of a
legalized collective bargaining law, the state courts agreed that the contract
agreement was null and void, but while UTLA’s fight seemed ineffective, it was not
in vain. Armed with disappointment and a mission, UTLA entered state politics and
“swung into action to get a collective bargaining law in place” (UTLA, 2004, para.
2).
After the Rodda Act passage, Proposition 13 came into place in 1978, and
school funding became a state focus. As a result, UTLA became more politically
involved at the state level, and still has a full-time lobbyist in Sacramento. In local
politics, UTLA has also “successfully backed candidates for the local school board”
(UTLA, 2004, para. 7), thereby demonstrating its influence and power.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Further demonstrating its influence, a “1989 strike that lasted nine days and
included 80% of the bargaining unit on the picket lines produced a historic three-year
contract” (UTLA, 2004, para. 6), as well as the implementation of school site
decision-making and school-based management. And while the recession of the
early 1990s saw much of the gains in teacher pay increases being undone, UTLA
continues to furiously fight teacher layoffs.
Teacher unions at the national, state, and even local levels continue to be
strong. But while collective bargaining has many passionate supporters, including
those who see a clearly positive influence on teacher evaluation and student
academic achievement, it also has its vocal critics. For example, a Pacific Research
Institute study (Riley, et al., 2002) of 460 California school districts and their teacher
unions indicate that school boards have yielded too much authority to teacher unions.
As the study states, “School boards across California have agreed to provisions that
negatively impact classrooms and student achievement” (Riley, et al., 2002, p. xiii).
Among the study’s various conclusions was that the state has not developed
competent systems to evaluate, assist, or terminate ineffective teachers due to the
restrictions found in teacher contracts. In addition, the study found that the
grievance process many districts is a complex, multi-step procedure that allows
virtually any issue to be grieved. However, critics and opponents can both agree on
the fact that collective bargaining has grown from non-existence to having a great
influence on educational issues, including the teacher evaluation process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
The literature reviewed on collective bargaining indicates that there is a need
to look at current teacher evaluation mandates and their continued relationship to
collective bargaining. Furthermore, if this relationship is unbalanced, hindering the
improvement of teacher practice and thus impeding student academic achievement,
then it needs to be modified. Other governance factors that also influence the teacher
evaluation process are reviewed in the following sections.
Teacher Tenure
Under California state law, teachers are hired on a probationary basis during
the first two years of service within a school district (Education Code, § 44929.21).
During the probationary period, renewal of the contract at the end of each school
year is at the discretion of the school board.
Tenure is defined as a statutory right to continued employment, after the
probationary period (Townley, Schmieder-Ramirez, Wehmeyer & Lane, 2001).
Generally speaking, “tenure granted by the state means at least two things for a
teacher: (a) continuing employment without the necessity of annual notification; and
(b) if employment is to be terminated, adequate reasons for termination and an
opportunity for an impartial hearing ensuring fundamental fairness” (Townley, et al.,
2001, p. 124).
The women’s rights movement helped include teacher tenure into California
state law in the 1920s. Its original intent was to protect schoolteachers, who were
mostly women, from firings without due process or from unfair rules (Bathen, 1999).
In practice, however, teacher tenure has its flaws. Currently, tenured teachers only
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
need to be evaluated every other year, as opposed to probationary teachers who must
go through the teacher evaluation process every year. Beyond this, tenure does not
require a formal process, nor are there any criteria besides completing the two years
of service. Thus, “California’s tenure law has become a mainstay for the state’s
teacher unions and a key protection for the incompetent” (Dawson & Billingsley,
2000, p. 11).
According to the California Education Code § 44932, tenured teachers can
only be dismissed for the following reasons:
1. Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
2. Committing, aiding, or advocating the commission of acts of criminal
syndicalism.
3. Unsatisfactory performance.
4. Evident unfitness for service.
5. Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct or associate with
children.
6. Persistent violation of or refusal to obey state law or reasonable state and
local regulations.
7. Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude
8. Advocacy or teaching of communism with the intent of indoctrination
9. Knowing membership in the Communist Party
10. Alcoholism or other drug abuse that makes the employee unfit to instruct or
associate with children (California Education Code § 44932).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Replacement of the word “incompetent” with “unsatisfactory performance” in 1995
is one of the minor noticeable changes made to the code in recent years. Although
the topic of performance is mentioned, the logistics of dismissing a tenured teacher
can be overwhelming, since “once a teacher receives tenure, it is virtually impossible
to dismiss him or her if performance wanes” (Dawson & Billingsley, 2000, p. 10).
According to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which oversees
dismissal proceedings, while the Los Angeles Unified School District has over
35,000 teachers, only 13 dismissal cases reached the hearing stage from 1990 to
1999 (Billingsley, 2001).
In summation, it is quite evident that governance factors have an impact on
the teacher evaluation process in California. However, the governance factors
mentioned above appear to impede this process instead of truly making it a more
effective procedure for improving student academic achievement.
State and Local Teacher Evaluation Policies
Although education is clearly a state function (Townley, et al., 2001),
California has allowed local districts to create their own teacher evaluation policies
with some uniform concepts. In 1971, California passed the Stull Act, now rooted in
section 44664 of the California Education Code. The Stull Act requires that each
school district create and maintain an evaluation and assessment system for all of its
certificated employees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
While the mandate requires that the evaluation system will be a uniformed
system within the district, uniformity among districts varies tremendously (Wise,
Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984). The result is that evaluation
tools vary with an evaluator’s subjectivity.
More significantly, California made several changes to the original Stull
Act in Senate Bill 813 (SB 813), which was passed in 1982. Among the changes
included were the following provisions:
(b) The governing board of each school district shall evaluate and
assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to:
(4) The progress of pupils toward the standards established
pursuant to subdivision (a) and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content
standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.
(2) The instructional techniques and strategies used by the
employee.
(3) The employee’s adherence to curricular objectives.
(4) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning
environment, within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. (California
Education Code, 44662).
California’s current teacher evaluation policy has several critics (Dawson &
Billingsley, 2000; Riley, Fusano, Munk & Peterson, 2002), who note that teacher
unions, fearful school principals, and other variables are presented to explain why
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
the policy will continue to produce failure. Beyond this, the evolution of
California’s teacher evaluation system is presented to describe the reasons why
problems still persist.
District and Site Level Supervision and Evaluation
Local school districts are bound to focus on initiatives and programs
prioritized by their local school board. While it is common for various major efforts
to be pushed for at the same time within a given district, few efforts tend to be
related to the formal teacher evaluation process.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the teacher evaluation
process closely follows the Stull Act, Senate (SB) Bill 813. In the LAUSD District
Policy Bulletin, Performance Evaluations for Certificated Bargaining Unit (1999),
the following guidelines are stated:
1. All non-permanent certificated employees are evaluated at least once
each school year.
2. Permanent certificated employees are evaluated at least every other
year.
3. An initial planning conference is held no later than the eighth week of
the school year, in which yearly objectives are agree to by the teacher and
administrator.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
4. If an evaluator anticipates a “Below Standard Performance,” the
evaluator must consult with a Staff Relations Coordinator, notify the teacher of the
possible unsatisfactory rating, and notify the local district administrator of the
situation.
The process for designating a teacher as performing “below standard” is quite
time consuming, which may indicate why, out of 300,000 teachers in the state, only
227 dismissal cases between 1990 and 1999 reached the decision phase of dismissal
(Billingsley, 2001).
It can be concluded that many various factors can affect the teacher
evaluation process. In the next section, four organizational perspectives are
examined and explained as to how they can directly or indirectly affect the process.
Four Organizational Perspectives
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Reframing Organizations presents a helpful way
to view organizations and the factors affecting them, as well as any true systematic
change within them. The four organizational perspectives include a structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic frame through which to view an
organization and its features, such as the teacher evaluation process. If there is to be
any true change in education, the different frames presented here will be relevant to
this change.
The following review of the four perspectives represents an effort to provide
an additional tool with which analyze the evaluation process at the heart of this
study. These organizational perspectives, along with the other factors presented in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
this literature review, highlight a need for further study of the teacher evaluation
process.
Structural Frame
The structural frame presented by Bolman and Deal (2003) is described as
being based on assumptions reflected in social architecture and organizational
design. Specifically, “these assumptions reflect a belief in rationality and a faith that
the right formal arrangements minimize problems and maximize performance”
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 44-45). The structural frame presents the organization in
a traditional, conservative light, where efficiency is the goal. Based on the views of
Federick W. Taylor’s (1911) scientific management and Max Weber’s (1947)
“monocratic bureaucracy,” whose features included a fixed division of labor and
hierarchy of offices, the structural frame allows institutions to be seen as machines of
efficiency.
This frame is applicable to schools as organizations in the sense that schools
are institutions from the Taylor (1911) and Weber era. Schools, and specifically
secondary high schools, were built with efficiency in mind. Large comprehensive
high schools divided into specific content areas (such as schools in the Los Angeles
Unified School District), with enrollments as high as 5,000 students, are now being
recognized as ineffective. This ineffectiveness is manifested in high drop out rates
and low test scores in urban settings, for example, with one result being that a trend
for small learning communities is instead being advocated. This frame allows for
such a change.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Human Resource Frame
On the other hand, the human resource frame presented by Bolman and Deal
(2003) is based on the following viewpoints:
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs.
2. People and organizations need each other.
3. A fit needs to happen for both the organization and individual.
4. A good match benefits both.
This frame allows for a unique perspective of an organization, in which employees’
needs are considered as much as the organization’s needs.
It is also the most applicable to the teacher evaluation process. Much of the
criticism of the role of collective bargaining units in education is based on the idea
that teacher unions are heavily focused on the viewpoints associated with this frame
and not on student needs. The teacher evaluation process is also seen in the same
light. This frame allows for a more in-depth analysis of the process to be reviewed
in this study.
Political Frame
Bolman and Deal (2003) present the political frame in an institution as
“goals, structure, and policies emerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and
negotiations among major interest groups” (p. 201). Organizations are seen as
establishments where people with diverse needs are essentially in conflict with each
other in order to gain resources.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
The relationship of politics to education is deep-seated. The mere structure
of any school district paints a clear view of this relationship. Through the political
frame, any participant in the educational process can see the bargaining and
negotiations that are continually in play. He or she can also see that the governance
factors previously described play a major role in this frame, and that collective
bargaining units and the teacher evaluation process are politically intertwined.
Through this frame, this study can potentially identify the rationale for the current
status of the teacher evaluation process and its lack of linkage to current school
reform strategies.
Symbolic Frame
Education, both private and public, has an extensive history in the United
States. Schools, as institutions, have established long traditions and customs that are
ingrained in the American culture. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) symbolic frame
allows such a view of schools to be developed. The symbolic frame is derived from
the idea that “culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people
around shared values and beliefs” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 243). The shared
values and beliefs that govern schools, however, are not necessarily student centered.
Thus, this frame allows an investigator to analyze a setting such as a school and
determine what exact role culture and traditions play. This is most beneficial when
trying to systematically reform or modify structure in an organization.
Through the symbolic frame, the teacher evaluation process can be examined
and a conclusion can be generated to determine what benefits, if any, the process can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
truly make in a school setting. This frame will be used in this study when collecting
data.
This brief review of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four organizational
perspectives provides an insight into the factors at play in the mandated teacher
evaluation process. These frames can be utilized in analyzing the role of such a
process, and can provide insight into critical factors that might assist or damage the
process.
Efforts to Improve Teacher Practice
Recent efforts have resulted in attempts to improve teacher practice. These
efforts are related to the different approaches toward teacher evaluation. In the
literature, the two main purposes of teacher evaluations that are cited are a
summative purpose and a formative purpose.
A teacher evaluation’s summative goal is to “know if teachers are ‘measuring
up’ according to specific criteria, granting recognition to those who are and
penalizing or removing those who are not... [It is an] approach to determine a
teacher’s competence, not to improve his or her work” (Ruenzel, Carlos, Perry,
Miller, & Madison, 1999, p. 2). On the other hand, a formative evaluation system
(McColskey & Egelson, 1993) promotes teacher self-evaluation and reflection,
increases teacher morale and motivation, advocates for teachers working
collaboratively, encourages professional growth, and supports experimentation
within new instructional approaches and strategies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, and Bernstein (1984) explain four
purposes for teacher evaluation, with the first two focusing on improvement
(individual staff development and school improvement), and the last two focusing on
accountability (individual personnel decisions and school status decisions). The
accountability category can be thought of as summative, while the improvement
category can be thought of as formative. Stronge, Helm & Tucker (1995) also
indicate these two broad areas as being outcome oriented (summative) and
improvement oriented (formative). Different names and terms are synonymous with
the general categories of summative and formative.
All of the efforts presented here are designed to improve teacher practice and
essentially increase student academic achievement through mostly formative
methods stressing improvement. While almost every concept has its critics, many
proponents of formative methods can also be found. As Sullivan and Glanz claim,
“Supervisor leadership for the 21st century requires enhanced collaborative
relationships, participatory decision-making, reflective listening and practice, and
teacher self-direction . . . Clearly, outdated and mechanistic conceptions of
supervision . . . are no longer valid, if they ever were” (2000, p. 212).
Presented in the following sections are the various processes and efforts that
attempt to improve teacher practices. This includes professional development at the
state level, the Beginning Teacher and Support Assessment (BTSA) program, and
the Peer Assistance Review (PAR) program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
State Supported Professional Development
After the passage of the Senate Bill (SB) 813, a comprehensive school
improvement plan was initiated in 1983, and focus turned from what was occurring
at the school to the actual classroom teacher (Perry, Miller, Carlos, Teague, & Fery,
2001). In 1987, a study titled Staff Development in California: Public and Personal
Investments, Program Patterns and Policy Choices (Little, Gerritz, Stem, Guthrie,
Kirst, & Marsh, 1987) found that teacher professional development in California was
inconsistent, lacked duration over a sustained time, and lacked sufficient follow-up
and school reinforcement.
In 1988, in its efforts to develop a comprehensive system of support for
professional development, the state legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1882. This
legislative act “established a three-prong approach to professional development in
the state: school improvement plans, regional consortia, and the California Subject
Matter Projects” (Shields, Esch, Humphrey, Riehl, Tiffany-Morales, Young, 2000,
para. 6).
According to an annual report, Teaching and California’ s Future: The status
o f the teaching profession 2003: Research findings and policy recommendations
(Shields, Esch, Humphrey, Wechsler, Chang-Ross, Gallagher, Guha, Tiffany-
Morales, Woodworth, 2003), subject matter professional development programs
were established to cover particular content areas, and the state has also funded
curriculum-focused professional development and continued district controlled
professional development. Yet all of the specific programs have seen their budgets
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
drastically reduced due to the economic hardships the state faced in 2003-04 fiscal
year.
Subject Matter Professional Development Programs
Professional Development Institutes
Established in 2000 by Assembly Bill (AB) 2881, the Professional
Development Institutes offer teacher training in reading, mathematics, and English
language development in the form of summer institutes and follow-up sessions.
More recently, we have seen the passage of Reading Institutes for K-6 teachers, and
Reading First Advanced Institutes for K-3 grade teachers were added with the help
of the No Child Left Behind funds.
California Subject Matter Projects
The state’s network of the California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs) were
established in 1988 and reauthorized in 1998 through AB 1743. Administered by the
University of California’s Office of the President (UCOP), “the projects aim to
improve teachers’ content knowledge in their subject area and identify teacher
leaders” (Shields, et al., 2003, p. 83).
The nine areas designated were writing, reading and literature, mathematics,
science, history and social studies, foreign language, physical education and health,
arts, and international studies for teachers. In addition, through the AB 75 act, the
California Principal Training Program, the state has demonstrated its commitment to
improve the professional development for its teachers and administrators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Curriculum-Focused Professional Development
Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program
AB 466 established the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development
Program, which reimburses school districts for teachers’ professional development in
the topics of reading and mathematics. The training must be provided by an
approved provider and must focus on state-adopted curricula. Since 2001, 355
districts have participated in the AB 466 trainings.
Reading First
Reading First is a literacy program funded by Title 1, Part B of the No Child
Left Behind Act. This program funds local education agencies in its attempt to
improve the reading skills of students in grades kindergarten through third grade.
District Controlled Professional Development
Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform
This reform effort reimburses school districts for training teachers and
teacher aides in subject matter knowledge, teaching strategies, classroom
management, conflict resolution, and other topics to improve student achievement in
core curriculum areas. These trainings are referred to as “buy-back” days and three
are offered per school year.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program and Peer Assistance Review
These two programs will be examined more in depth since they have made a
huge difference in improving teacher practices.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program
Educational theories and several studies in the 1980s and early 1990s had
indicated that there would be a national teacher shortage (Darling-Hammond, 1984;
Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, & Grissmer, 1988), and that increasing teacher
retirement and hence a high rate of teacher turnover (Grissmer & Kirby, 1987, 1992;
Mumane, Singer & Willett, 1988) would result in lower educational performance.
Thus, in 1992, the California legislature not only focused on how new teachers were
being prepared for the classroom, but also focused on how to retain them.
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the California
Department of Education were granted funds in 1988 by the state legislature to
support the induction of beginning teachers. The California New Teacher Project
(CNTP) was created shortly afterwards as a pilot program in 1989. CNTP conducted
research in which it “identified the need to provide beginning teachers with focused
induction support... [which made] a difference in the performance, retention, and
satisfaction of beginning teachers” (California BTSA, 2004, para. 2).
Based on CNTP’s recommendation, Senate Bill (SB) 1422 was passed by the
California legislation in 1992, and the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA) program was created. The program’s objective is to provide formative
assessment and individualized support based on assessment information for
beginning teachers (California BTSA, 2004), specifically for those in their first and
second year preliminary and for clear credential teachers. According to EdSource,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
“Based on a favorable evaluation of BTSA in 1997, lawmakers passed SB 2042 to
expand the program so more new teachers could participate” (2004, para. 8).
The program’s funding increased from $72 million in 1992 to $104.6 million
in the fiscal year 2001 (California BTSA, 2004). The program requires that the local
program (school district) pay $2,000 per teacher participating, while BTSA covers
the other half of the cost for participating. This financial burden for local school
districts appears to be low compared to the estimated cost of teacher turnover, which
ranged from $6,000 to $52,000 per teacher (Texas Center for Educational Research,
2000). Unfortunately, the economic downturn for the fiscal year 2003-04 has
reduced BTSA’s budget by at least 50% (Shields, et al., 2003).
Each BTSA program utilizes the California Formative Assessment and
Support System for Teachers (CFASST), or a locally approved assessment. Support
providers are specially trained, experienced teachers that assist beginning teachers in
collecting and interpreting evidence of teaching performance, provide an opportunity
for self-reflection on their teaching, and help identify professional development
activities that best suit their needs. The legislation also encouraged collaboration by
local school boards, county offices of education, colleges, and universities in the
induction of new teachers.
Currently, there are 145 BTSA programs throughout the state, and they vary
in organizational design. The laws that govern local BTSA programs (Education
Code Section 44279.2) require that the purposes of the programs shall include all of
the following:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
1 . To provide an effective transition into the teaching career for first-year and
second-year teachers in California.
2. To improve the educational performance of students through improved
training, information and assistance for new teachers.
3 . To enable beginning teachers to be effective in teaching students who are
culturally, linguistically and academically diverse.
4 . To ensure the professional success and retention of new teachers.
5 . To ensure that a support provider provides intensive individualized support
and assistance to each beginning teacher.
6. To improve the rigor and consistency of individual teacher performance
assessments and the usefulness of assessment results to teachers and decision
makers.
7 . To establish an effective, coherent system of performance assessments that is
based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.
8 . To examine alternative ways in which the general public and the educational
profession may be assured that new teachers who remain in teaching have attained
acceptable levels of professional competence.
9 . To ensure that an Individual Induction Plan for beginning teacher is based on
an ongoing assessment of the beginning teacher’s development.
1 0 . To ensure continuous program improvement through ongoing research,
development and evaluation (Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Programs, 1997, pp. 12-13).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Peer Assistance Review
Another effort to improve teacher performance was through the Peer
Assistance Review (PAR) program. In January 1999, then newly-elected Governor
Gray Davis called a special legislative session to focus on improving kindergarten
through twelfth grade public education (Perry, Miller, Carlos, Teague, & Frey,
2001). Among the various mandates that came from the special legislative session,
the new accountability system was also introduced. Its main purpose is to continue
working with classroom teachers to improve teacher performance.
In April 1999, Assembly Bill (AB) lx was approved by the state legislature
and the PAR program was funded $125 million to serve as a critical feedback
mechanism that allows exemplary teachers to assist certain permanent and beginning
teachers in the areas of subject matter knowledge, teaching strategies, and teaching
methods (Ruenzel, Carlos, Perry, Miller, & Madison, 1999). The program replaced
the state’s Mentor Teacher Program in 1999-2000. Yet as with the BTSA program,
the economic downturn for the fiscal year 2003-04 has reduced PAR’s budget by at
least 50% (Shields, Esch, Humphrey, Wechsler, Chang-Ross, Gallagher, Guha,
Tiffany-Morales, Woodworth, 2003).
The implementation of the program was left to the local school districts,
working along with the collective bargaining units. The following summative and
formative design principles are required to be included in the local programs:
1. Participating teachers shall either volunteer to participate, be referred as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
result of a performance review or be referred according to the criteria of the district’s
collective bargaining agreement and shall have permanent status.
2. Performance goals shall be in writing, clearly stated, and aligned with
pupil learning goals.
3. The assistance and review shall include a process that relies on multiple
observations of a teacher’s instruction.
4. The principal is expected to work cooperatively with the consulting
teachers.
5. The process shall be monitored and a written record kept.
6. The final evaluation of a teacher’s participation in the program shall be
placed in his or her personnel file (but not a recommendation as to a teacher’s
continuation or dismissal).
7. The local program will be overseen by a peer review panel composed of
administrators and select teachers to participate, review reports, and make
recommendations to the school board about the participants in the program (Ruenzel,
Carlos, Perry, Miller, & Madison, 1999, p. 5).
Interestingly, AB lx also authorizes the use of student performance on the
California Standards tests as part of the teacher evaluation process, but not the use of
standardized norm tests like the California Achievement Test, sixth edition (CAT/6).
This feature is yet to be utilized to the full extent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
In efforts to encourage school districts to participate in the program, the state
will make funds available for professional development to those that participate.
School districts that do not choose to participate are ineligible for the funds.
Although well received, PAR also has opponents. According to one study,
while “some critics, including some educators, believe the conventional roles for
teachers and principals still make most sense.... peer review actually undermines the
authority of the principal... and takes expert teachers out of the classroom”
(Ruenzel, et al., 1999, p. 5). In fact, although the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) initiated peer review and
assistance programs in school districts such as Cincinnati, Ohio; Toledo, Columbus;
and Seattle, Washington, the concept of teachers working with and against teachers
is not an idea that teacher unions have wholeheartedly supported. Instead, “the state
teacher union (California Teachers Association) has expressed reservations about
peer review and local units are not universally supportive” (Ruenzel, et al., 1999, p.
6).
Peer Assistance Review is a program that is still present in the state as an
alternative to traditional teacher evaluation. The goals of this effort are to improve
teacher performance and student achievement. School district and teacher unions
across the nation are waiting to see how effective this process is. To date, PAR has
not revolutionized the California teacher evaluation process.
In recent years, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has
implemented various different school reform programs. These programs include an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
adoption of phonics-based instructional programs, e.g., Open Court', an after-school
focus, e.g., Beyond the Bell', small learning communities, e.g., America’ s Choice', and
an effort-based education and leamable intelligence approach, e.g., Principles for
Teaching and Learning (Resnick, 1999). These school reform methods have slightly
increased student achievement, especially in the elementary level, but have not made
systematic changes in all the comprehensive schools.
Specifically, LAUSD has implemented a tool that is based on Dr. Lauren
Resnick’s research on the Principles o f Teaching and Learning, the LeamingWalk.
In a nutshell, “the Learning Walk is an organized visit through a school’s halls and
classroom using the Principles of Learning to focus on the instructional core”
(Institute for Learning, 2004, para. 3). The principles of learning are:
1. Organizing for Effort;
2. Clear Expectations;
3. Fair and Credible Evaluations;
4. Recognition and Accomplishment;
5. Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum;
6. Accountable Talk;
7. Socializing Intelligence;
8. Self-Management of Learning; and
9. Learning as Apprenticeship (Resnick, 1999).
Beforehand, participants are given an orientation to the Principles o f
Learning and to the Learning Walks. Participants, which in LAUSD are mostly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
school administrators and content area coaches, then spend about five to ten minutes
in each of several classrooms looking at student work, looking for evidence of
implementation of staff development, and talking with students and teachers.
Afterwards, the staff meets again to follow up with feedback and reflections. The
Learning Walks are considered part of the work and culture of a “nested learning
community,” and never stand alone to evaluate the work of teachers and students
(Institute for Learning, 2004).
Even though the Learning Walks provide an opportunity for supervision of
instruction, it is clear that they are not to be tied to the teacher evaluation process.
The lack of relationship between this type of supervision and evaluation is a failed
opportunity to make teacher evaluations a genuine, practical process.
Recommendations to Improve Teaching
In a 1997 report, Darling-Hammond and Ball cite various promising state
strategies for improving teaching. The strategies recommended were standards-
based reforms of teaching, a redesign of teacher education and induction, and a
restructured professional development.
The standards-based reforms included standards for the teaching profession,
as well as student standards for various content areas. The redesigning of teacher
education and induction included examples and recommendations of strategies
utilized by other states. This included “new induction programs that provided
beginning teachers with more intensive supervision and assessment tied to new
teaching standards” (Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1997, p. 28). On the other hand, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
proposed restructured professional development recommended “moving beyond the
generic ‘hit-and-run’ workshops to help teachers meet the challenge of teaching
more ambitious content to student who learn in a variety of ways” (Darling-
Hammond & Ball, 1997, p. 28-29).
An EdSource Report (Hertert & Teague, 2003) summarizes the research of
what became collectively known as “Effective Schools” in the 1980s. The summary
includes the following principles for effective schools:
1. Safe and orderly environment;
2. Climate of high expectations;
3. Instructional leadership;
4. Clear and focused mission;
5. Opportunity to learn and student time on task;
6. Frequent monitoring of student progress; and
7. Home-school relations (Hertert & Teague, 2003).
The same report also summarized the 1990s trend of systemic reform.
Principles of systemic school reform included having a unified vision and goals, a
coherent system of instructional guidance, and a restructured governance system
(Hertert & Teague, 2003). While this report presented key areas of systemic school
reform, the effectiveness of the mandated teacher evaluation process that exists in
almost every state throughout the nation failed to be mentioned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Similarly, in Accountability in Action: A blueprint for learning organizations
(Reeves, 2004), specific actions are recommended to make an organization effective
and accountable in order to increase student learning:
1. Establish an accountability task force;
2. Accountability principles;
3. Research existing accountability systems;
4. Accountability System Architecture;
5. Critical review of accountability plan design;
6. Select system-wide accountability indicators;
7. Select school-based accountability indicators;
8. Accountability reports;
9. Build the central office into the accountability system; and
10. Use accountability data to improve teaching, learning, and leadership
(Reeves, 2004).
Here, accountability is seen at all levels and evaluation is meant for everyone.
Although teacher evaluation is not specifically mentioned, what drives these
initiatives is the notion of self-accountability, and, by extension, improved student
academic achievement. But again, and as in the previous report, the teacher
evaluation process is not specifically mentioned. A specific linkage between
accountability and the evaluation process is needed in this current accountable era.
One would assume that a harmonious relationship between the two can exist, but
investigation into this relationship is slight. Once again, Reeves’ (2004) report
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
highlights the need for a further study of the teacher evaluation process in a high
performing urban school.
These summaries help describe what has been attempted and recommended
in the last two decades in order to improve teacher performance in the classroom.
The two following efforts have been initiated from the research presented, and
constitute California’s attempt to improve teacher performance.
High Performing Districts and Schools
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) published a report, Rethinking the
Allocation o f Teaching Resources: Some Lessons from High Performing Schools, in
which they examine various schools throughout the country. These schools serve a
diverse student population, engaged in rethinking of resources, have no significant
extra resources, implemented a new organization model in place for at least 2 years,
and show strong evidence that the changes have produced improved student
achievement.
The report concluded that elementary high performing schools had the
following qualities: (a) reduction of specialized programs, (b) more flexible student
grouping by school professionals, (c) structures to support more personal
relationships, and (d) more common planning time for teachers. High performing
secondary schools had the same qualities, with the addition of longer and more
varied blocks of instructional time. Among the school reviewed were Douglass
Elementary School in Memphis, Tennessee, and Central Park East Secondary School
in New York, New York.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
As described in the report, Douglass Elementary School is located in
Memphis, Tennessee, and has a population of 475 students, 17% of whom are
classified as special education students, and 88% of whom qualify for Title 1
support. The effectiveness of the school is plainly evident. According to the report,
“after the second year of implementing the [Success for All] program, the percent of
second graders ... scoring at or above the median increased from 17 percent to 59
percent” (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 7)
Douglass Elementary’s resource allocations included reduction of specialized
programs, so that all Title 1 students participated in the Success for All model. More
importantly, all special education students (resource program participants) were
integrated into the general education classrooms. Special education teachers worked
with the general education teachers in instructional planning. In addition, the school
implemented flexible student grouping, increasing its class size to 24 so that many
more students could participate in the Success for All model, and allowed the
program facilitator and Title 1 teacher to plan together. Lastly, the school provided a
common planning time for its teachers by grade level, three times per week.
At the time of the report, Central Park East Secondary School in New York
City had 450 students in grades 7th through 12th grade. Sixty percent of its student
population qualified for free or reduced lunch, and 25% of its population qualified
for special education services. Each year since its inception, however, “more than
90% of Central Park East students have graduated and more than 90% have been
accepted to college” (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 7).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Central Park East’s reduction of specialized programs includes placing
students in multi-aged heterogeneous groups of 18. Students take two academic
tV i
courses per day (math/science and humanities) in grades 7 through 10, while 11 and
12 graders take senior institutes that include college courses and internships.
Advisory groups of 12 through 15 students, teacher loads of 36 students each, and 2
year placements in peer groups, or “houses,” provide the structures to support more
personal relationships.
Although these two schools do not specifically describe a new teacher
evaluation process, the changes incorporated make every stakeholder responsible and
accountable. These two high performing schools in urban areas serve as examples of
what can be accomplished by improving teacher practice, including increased student
achievement.
There appears to be an assumption that the evaluation process in effective
schools is somehow beneficial to and intertwined with the school’s reform process,
or an assumption that the process is so involved that modifying it is impossible, to
the point that it is completely ignored. There is an apparent need to confirm what the
teacher evaluation process looks like in a high performing urban school. The next
chapters present a case study at such a school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the research methodology used in the study to answer
the problem presented. This chapter includes five sections. The first section
includes a review of the purpose of the study and the rationale for a multiple-method
case study. The second section explains the sampling procedure and population. The
third section includes a description of the instrumentation utilized in the study. The
fourth section includes a detailed description of the procedures for data collection,
and finally, in the last section, a data analysis and interpretation is presented.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to describe and explore the current teacher
evaluation process and other factors that impacted teacher practices at a high
performing urban school setting. The areas that were studied included the teacher’s
knowledge and perceptions of the teacher evaluation process, the extent to which the
administration actively participated in the formal evaluation process as mandated by
the California Education Code, on-going teacher supervision by administrators,
teachers’ perception of school efforts as they may have led to school improvement,
teacher’s perception of the school culture, and teacher’s own efficacy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Exploratory Questions
The following exploratory questions guided the 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 processes at the school level?
Rationale for Multiple-Method Case Study
The rationales for utilizing a multiple-method case study were numerous.
First, this method enables the researcher to shed light on a phenomenon, defined as
“the processes, events, persons, or things of interest to the researcher” (Gall & Borg,
Gall, 2003, p. 435), but which, in this case, is also of interest to many in the
educational field working towards improvement in student academic achievement.
Also, triangulation, defined as “a deliberate use of multiple data collection methods,”
permits “each method to reveal different perspectives of reality, served to clarify and
enrich information the leaders offered and to provide multiple perceptions of the
processes” (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000, p. 212).
In addition, since the intention of the researcher was to study in-depth the
local teacher evaluation process and its influence on instructional practices used in
the classroom by teachers, the case study approach provided an opportunity to do so
in a natural context. This approach then “enables the researcher to develop a level of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
detail about the individual or place and to be highly involved in actual experiences of
the participants” (Creswell, 2003, p. 181). As well, the natural setting allows the
researchers to define themes or characteristic features in terms of how the high
performing urban school setting constructs the phenomenon.
Sample and Population
Sample
The case study was conducted at a high performing urban school in the Los
Angeles Unified School District, which has exceeded its Academic Performance
Index (API) growth target for a minimum of three consecutive years, and whose
similar school ranking is 7 or above. Currently, the school’s status includes a 2004
API score of 607. This is a twenty-five point growth from last year’s 582 API score.
The school met its school-wide and comparable improvement target of an eleven
point growth. In addition, it was eligible for any awards given by the state because
the school made at least five points school-wide and at least four points for growth
for each numerically significant subgroup, both of which are criteria for awards.
Compared to similar schools, its decile rank is a nine.
In this case study, the school selected is technically a learning center. A
learning center school consists of kindergarten through 12th grade, although the
biggest student population lies in the middle grades. The school was selected for its
diversity and its past interest in working with the local universities for educational
research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Population
The total school population is 3,294 students, as reported in the California
Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) October 2003 count (California
Department of Education, 2004). The specific student demographics for the 2003-04
school year are as follows: 0.3% Alaska Native or American Indian, 0.3% Asian,
0.1% Filipino, 23.5% African American, 76% Hispanic or Latino, 0.1% White, and
no Pacific Islander students enrolled. In addition, 82% of its students participate in
the free or reduced lunch price program and hence receive Title 1 funds. 32% of its
student populations, as well, are identified as English Learners.
According to CBEDS, the school has three tracks, 153 teachers, and six
certificated school administrators. Sixty eight percent of its teachers hold a full,
professional clear credential. One third of the teachers have 11 or more years with
the district and more than half of the staff has been at the school for 2-5 years. The
school is very unique in the sense that it holds a wide grade span, but its progressive
nature appears to lend itself to creative solutions to potential problems.
Instrumentation
Various instruments were used in attempts to address the problem put
forward by this study and to answer the research questions proposed, as well as to
get a true sense of the physical context. The instruments utilized in this case study,
created through a collaborative effort with other colleagues studying the same area of
interest, include surveys given to the teachers (Appendix A), extensive interviews
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
conducted with teachers and three administrators (Appendix B and C), document
reviews (Appendix D and E), and school activity observations (Appendix F).
A survey was collectively developed to get authentic feedback from teachers
who would have direct experience with the effects of the teacher evaluation system.
All teachers at the selected site were asked to complete the survey. In an effort to
increase encourage participation, external incentives were provided. Teacher and
administrator interview questions were collectively created and utilized to further
retrieve information that addresses the research questions posed.
In addition, 16 random teachers were individually interviewed about their
experience with the teacher evaluation system currently utilized, and the impact it
has on the instructional strategies used in their classrooms. Three administrators
were also individually interviewed for their thoughts about how the current
evaluation system impacts the classroom, about other school efforts, and about the
school’s culture as it impacts instructional improvement.
Using a uniform observation template, the researcher also performed
interviews and observations of general school activities through the lens of the
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames (human resource, symbolic, structural and
political). Observational opportunities included:
1. Professional development/demonstration lessons
2. Office/classified personnel
3. Classrooms (using site adopted instructional strategies)
4. Campus climate/culture (i.e., teachers’ lunch break)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
5. Departmental/grade level/collaboration meetings.
Also, a document review instrument was utilized to review the following
documents: (a) local district Stull Evaluation Forms, (b) Stull Bill Legislation; c)
California Education Code, (d) local collective bargaining agreements, (e) California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (1997), (f) the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement, (g) the school’s professional development plan, (h) accreditation/
program quality review documentation; (i) demographic data, (j) No Child Left
Behind legislation, (k) School Site Council and School Based Management
meetings, (1) district board policy, and (m) school district memoranda and policy
bulletins.
Data Collection
The data collection were coordinated and scheduled in the following manner
over a period of 5 months, from October 2004 through February 2005.
Surveys
Since it was extremely rare for all tracks to meet on the same day or at the
same time, the survey opportunity (including a short summary) was spread out over
3 months, from October 2004 to December 2004, to teachers in different groupings:
for example, at track meeting, faculty meetings, department meetings, and grade
level meetings.
The surveys were first distributed at a monthly faculty meeting on October
19, 2004, where teachers from Tracks A and C were present. On October 20, 2005, a
short summary of the study and the survey were made available in the early morning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
to Track B before a professional development day (i.e., buy-back day). Other
opportunities to explain this study and invite teachers to participate in the survey
included several common planning time days after school in November and
December, 2004, when teachers were divided into departments by the content area
they teach. The surveys were completely voluntarily. The participants were asked to
return the survey at the end of the meeting, per the principal’s suggestion.
The survey responses provided more specific insights as to what teachers
understand the evaluation process to be. These responses assisted the researcher to
focus and emphasize specific questions in the individual teacher and administrator
interviews. Surveys were stored in the locked office of the co-principal
investigators. No personally identifiable data was collected. The information was
used only for an educational purpose, and will be erased within a full calendar year
from when the study was concluded. When the results of the research are published
or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal the
participants’ identities.
An initial small pilot study was conducted with the teacher version of the
survey. The results of the field testing indicated that the survey meets both the
standards of validity and reliability. It also shows strong signs of yielding data that
will demonstrate connections between school culture, leadership, and the
effectiveness of teacher supervision and evaluation on improved teacher practice in
the classroom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Interviews
In the months of January and February, 2004, several individual teacher and
administrator interviews were conducted. The teachers and administrators selected
for participation took part on a voluntary basis, but a diverse group was sought after.
This group included key staff such as teachers on special assignment, department
chairpersons, and teachers ranging in number of years teaching within and outside
the district. The same criterion was applied to the administrative staff.
The focus of the interviews was on the participants’ experience with the
teacher evaluation system currently utilized, and what impact it has on the
instructional strategies used in their classrooms. The three administrators
interviewed individually were also interviewed for their thoughts about how the
current evaluation system impacts the classroom, and if there is any linkage between
it and the school’s efforts and school culture.
The interview tapes and transcriptions were stored in the locked office of the
co-principal investigators. No personally identifiable data was collected.
Observations
In order to discover other factors affected teacher practice in the classroom,
observations were conducted throughout the four month period, with at least ten
hours of observations a month. Observations included regular school activities such
as common planning time periods, professional development sessions, faculty
meetings, and after-school activities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Document Review Instrument
While some of the documents reviewed were available outside of the actual
school site, others required on-site review. The document review occurred
throughout the 4 month case study period.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this case study was to describe and explore the current teacher
evaluation process and other factors that impact teacher practices at a high
performing urban school setting. Therefore, it was critical to collect data from
various sources in order to create an in-depth look at the school in this case study. A
triangulation strategy was deemed the most appropriate way to analyze the data for
this study. This study therefore used “quantitative and qualitative methods as a
means to offset the weaknesses inherent within one method with the strengths of the
other method” (Creswell, 2003, p. 217).
A conceptual framework (Figure 1) was created from the approach used.
From the collection of the various data, a picture of the different components of the
successful school studied began to emerge. In addition, while the mandated teacher
evaluation process was not necessarily a critical component of the successful school,
a core student-centered school culture and its offshoots, which include a unifying
vision, rigorous standards-based instruction and assessment, distributive leadership,
professional development, and democratic decision-making, were factors that
emerged in this high performing urban school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Unifying Vision
A rigorous
standards-based
curriculum,
instruction and
assessment
Distributive
leadership
Student-
Centered
School Culture
Professional
development
Democratic
decision-making
culture
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of factors that contribute to a school’s success
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter reports the findings of the research study of a high
performing urban school in the Los Angeles Unified School District based on data
collected from various sources, including: (a) teacher surveys, (b) teacher and
administrator interviews, (c) observations, and (d) documents’ review. Specific
questions guided the study. This chapter will specifically analyze and interpret
the findings of the data as they directly relate to each of the exploratory questions
that guided this study:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluations?
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 processes at the school level?
Analysis and Interpretations of Findings
Research Question 1: What is the District’s Policy and Strategy for
Carrying out Teacher Evaluations?
Survey
Questions one through six are related to this first research question. The
first two questions in the survey inquired about the respondents’ number of years
of teaching experience both in general terms (Table 1), and within the specific
school site (Table 2). For the first two questions, the teachers in the survey were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
asked to circle the most accurate response indicating their experience. The
choices included 0-1 years, 2-5 years, 6-10 years and 11 years and more.
Table 1: Number of Years as a Teacher
Frequency Valid Percentage
0-1 yrs. 3 5.9
2-5yrs. 14 27.5
6-10yrs 1 1 21.6
1 1 yrs. and over 23 45.1
Total 51 100.0
Table 2: Number of Years at this Site
Frequency Valid Percentage
0-1 yrs. 5 10
2-5yrs. 17 34
6-10yrs 9 18
1 1 yrs. and over 19 38
Total 51 100.0
In Table 1, the largest group within the number of teachers that
participated in the survey falls in the category of having taught for 11 years or
more (45.1% of teachers). The second largest group of participating teachers falls
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
within the 2-5 years experience category (27.5%). These findings were later
confirmed in the teacher and administrator interviews.
Table 2, which maps teachers’ number of years teaching at the specific
school site where the study took place, also indicates similar groupings. The
largest group is the number of teachers at the school site who have taught for 11
years or more (38%), and the second largest group is teachers who have taught for
2-5 years (34%). Currently, the smallest group of teachers is in the category of
first-year teacher (10%). These findings are reflected in other various instruments
that were used to study the school.
Table 3: Teacher Survey Responses Questions Number Three through Six
Survey Question Number of Mean (Mj Standard
Responses Deviation
(N) (SD)
3 .1 am aware of the district’s
policy regarding teacher
evaluation.
51 2.18 .910
4 .1 understand the district’s
policy regarding teacher
evaluation.
51 2.04 .979
5 .1 agree with the goals and
objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation.
51 1.59 .876
6 .1 am satisfied that my site
administrators are carrying out
the district’s policy on teacher
evaluation with integrity.
51 1.22 1.026
Questions number three through six on the teachers’ survey (Appendix A),
are specifically related to the first research question. For questions 3 through 52,
respondents were asked to circle the most accurate response for each item on a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
four-point Likert-type scale comprised of: (0) Strongly Disagree, (1) Disagree, (2)
Agree, and (3) Strongly Agree. Table 3 indicates that two out of the four
responses’ means were in the area of two, but when the teachers were asked to
give evaluative judgments on the district’s selection of the goals and objectives as
they relate to the teacher evaluation process, along with the administrator’s
competency in carrying out this procedure, the mean fell within 1.20 and 1.60.
Table 4: Significant and Positive Correlations Between the Number of
Years as a Teacher, Awareness, and Understanding of the Teacher Evaluation
Survey Question Number of
Years as a
teacher
3 .1 am aware of the district’s Pearson Correlation .633
policy regarding teacher
evaluation.
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
4 .1 understand the district’s Pearson Correlation .514
policy regarding teacher
evaluation. Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Comparisons were also drawn between the respondents’ number of years
as a teacher and the reported awareness of the district’s policy regarding the
teacher evaluation (Table 4). The findings revealed that there are significant and
positive correlations at the .01 level between the two statements (r = .633, p <
.000). In addition, the Pearson Correlation also indicates that the number of years
as a teacher is significantly and positively related (r = .514, p < .000) to
understanding the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation (Table 4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Teacher and Administrator Interviews
Teachers were randomly asked to participate in an individual twenty-three
questions interview (Appendix B). The school’s principal and two assistant
principals were also asked to participate in the Administrators’ individual
interview (Appendix C). Most of the interviews occurred in person at the school
site, while a few others occurred over the telephone. In total, sixteen teachers
participated in the individual interviews, with their experience levels varying from
that of a first year teacher at the school site to that of a teacher who has taught for
20 years.
Three administrators also participated: the principal, who is in her fifth
year as Principal at the site after being assistant principal at the same site in both
operations and curriculum and instruction; an assistant principal, Secondary
Counseling Services (APSCS), who has numerous of years of experience as a
teacher and administrator within and outside the school district; and a relatively
young assistant principal (AP) in charge of curriculum and instruction who has
been at the site as an assistant principal for approximately 1 year, after having
taught for six years and being a coordinator at another school within the school
district.
The first section of the teacher interview, which addresses teachers’
knowledge and perceptions of the teacher evaluation policy and process, relates to
this study’s first research question, “What is the district’s policy and strategy for
carrying out teacher evaluations?”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Question number 3 in the survey asks, how would you describe your
district’s policy on teacher evaluation? Questions number 4 asks, how does the
teacher evaluation process affect your practice in the classroom? Question number
5 of the survey asks what modifications would you recommend for the teacher
evaluation policy that would improve your practice?
The teacher interviews strongly validated the data collected from the
teacher surveys. Question number one asked, “How would you describe your
district’s policy on teacher evaluation?” The first question’s responses varied
with the years of experience the teacher identified, thereby indicating varied
levels of knowledge about the teacher evaluation policy. For example, a teacher
who has over 15 years of experience was able to summarize the policy in this
way:
You first meet with your administrator to complete and review the initial
planning sheet. Afterwards you set a date for an informal evaluation and
then the administrator pops in. You have a conference after the
observations. Teachers get Stulled every year until they achieve
probationary status and then the administrator recommends that they get
permanent status; that’s not automatic. When they are permanent, they get
Stulled every two years. Yeah, kind of follows the standard rules, hasn’t
changed much. (Personal communication, January 24, 2005)
This comment demonstrates a fairly accurate knowledge of the process.
On the other hand, a new teacher to the school district and the school site
remarks that even though more than half of the school year had passed, “I haven’t
been evaluated and I haven’t reviewed the Stull process” (Personal
communication, January 24, 2005). Another teacher who has 6 years of teaching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
experience described the frustration of the process: “There is no process; I’m not
aware of any. If there’s any, I’m not aware of that because as I said, the last one
was probably in 3 years and that time it was just, pop in and see what you’re
doing and goodbye” (Personal communication, February 2, 2005).
The second interview question, “How does the teacher evaluation process
affect your practice in the classroom?,” also relates to the study’s first research
question, “What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluations?” Again, responses to this question were varied, and seemed to
correlate to the respondent’s number of years of experience. From these
responses, it appears that the evaluation process is helpful to teachers who are
new to the profession, and less so to teachers who have more than 11 years of
teaching experience.
One teacher who has been teaching for 14 years explains, “It basically forces
me to fill out some forms and do that kind of thing but [makes] not that much of a
change in my practice in the classroom” (Personal communication, January 24,
2005). Another teacher who has 20 years teaching experience describes the
process in this way:
Well, I think for the beginning teachers, the potential is there for it to be
constructive. When I was a beginning teacher, I considered it to be a
constructive process mainly because my administrator made frequent
visits and she gave me constructive feedback. I have always taken the
Stull in that manner, or I have interpreted in that manner as it being
constructive. I think when you are in a school where the administrators
have so many teachers that have to be Stulled, every year, and you have
four new administrators, maybe five administrators, and they don’t make
regular visits to you, then I have no respect for the Stull process, because
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
it’s not that it’s ineffective, it just isn’t. By law they have to submit a
form, which you have to sign off on it, which is fine. And I know that a lot
of the things on the Stull, they don’t have to come to your classroom to see
to know that you are or aren’t doing them, so in terms of that, I mean its
just paperwork, really. I prefer the most constructive approach, I think,
especially for the veteran teachers, I think something like peer review
where I actually get some feedback from my colleagues: ‘Hey, good
going,’ or ‘Why don’t you try this,’ or suggestions, would be more
effective. How does it [the Stull Process] affect? It doesn’t (Personal
communication, January 28, 2005).
The principal of the site also arrived at the same opinion, that the
evaluation process as it is now is more effective for beginning teachers, but that
an alternative evaluation might be more applicable for teachers with numerous
years of experience.
I don’t know, as a teacher, how effective the Stull is. Which is why we
have a waiver through SBM for an alternate Stull, seasoned teachers, those
who have a credential and permanent status, who have had successful
Stulls, can elect to have an alternate Stull.... And it has gotten better since
last year, when they came up with a Stull new evaluation, which is in the
form of a rubric. So I would say that it is a little better because the other
one, you never really addressed how I can be better, you either meet the
qualifications or you don’t. So what if I want to be better or exceptional,
there’s isn’t a way to figure it out or articulate [high performance], unless
the person evaluating
chooses to write in that comment. Through a rubric, with the new one, it
is a little bit easier. I think it might be better for a new teacher to grow
from that but if you’re a seasoned teacher, to me, it’s meaningless. If I am
a good teacher in ‘98, if I was effective in ‘98, what happens in ’99?
(Personal communication, January 28, 2005)
Question number three asked teachers, “What modifications would you
recommend for the teacher evaluation policy that would improve your practice?”
Among the recommendations for improving the process, the following
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
suggestions were made: better implementation of the process, peer reviews, and
alternate evaluation processes.
Observations
Observation of regular school activities, mostly done late, after school,
were conducted in an attempt to answer this study’s first research question, “What
is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evaluations?”
Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of the teacher evaluation policy and process
were noted in the observations.
Observations for this research question and subtopic area included
classroom
visits, departmental meetings, track meetings, professional development days, and
office observations. Through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames
for analyzing organizations (human resource, symbolic, structural, and political),
the one that became most relevant was the structural frame. Although most of the
observations did not demonstrate any clear evidence of what the district’s policy
or strategy for carrying out teacher evaluation was, one specific observation stood
out.
During an after-school observation of a classroom, the teacher’s main
concern appeared to be submitting the initial planning sheet in time, and not the
actual content of the form. This initial planning sheet is the first part of the
evaluation process, and describes the areas that the teacher and administrator will
focus on for evaluative purposes. This specific observation, as seen through the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
structural frame, helps to explain why the importance of the content of the initial
planning sheet is not addressed: this is due to the fact that the priority lies with the
organizational timelines instead. Other observations did not necessarily
demonstrate, in any clear way, the staff’s or administration’s knowledge or
perception of the teacher evaluation policy. It was through the surveys and
interviews, instead, that teachers and administrators alike demonstrated their
knowledge and perceptions of the process, as discussed above.
Documents’ Review
Several documents were reviewed, as well, in order to address the research
question, “What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluations?” Specifically, documents were reviewed to address the teachers’
knowledge and perceptions of the teacher evaluation policy and process.
As noted in the Specific Documents Reviewed Tool (Appendix D), the
following documents were reviewed: (a) school district’s Stull Evaluation Forms,
(b) Stull Bill, (c) Education Code Section 44660-44665, (d) the collective
bargaining agreement, (e) California Standards for the Teaching Profession, (f)
the Single School Plan for Student Achievement, (g) the school’s professional
development plan, (h) the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
program quality review, (i) demographic data, (j) No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation, (k) School Site Council and School Based Management (SBM)
meetings, (1) district board policy, and (m) school district memoranda and policy
bulletins.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
The documents that related to the teacher evaluation process were the Stull
Bill, section 44664 of the California Education Code, as described in the literature
review, the collective bargaining agreement (United Teacher Los Angeles, 2001)
and the district policy bulletins and memoranda. While the Stull Bill, section
44664 of the Education Code, and the collective bargaining agreement are vague
in terms of the actual teacher evaluation process, they do provide an overview of
the main components of the practice. The collective bargaining was more
specific, as well as the policy bulletins and memoranda.
The latest collective bargaining agreement (United Teacher Los Angeles,
2001) Article X, titled “Evaluation and Discipline,” describes in general terms
what the district’s policy and strategy are for carrying out teacher evaluations.
This article describes the following items: (a) Purpose of the evaluation, (b) Who
the evaluator is, (c) Frequency of evaluations, (d) Establishment of Objectives, (e)
Observations, records and assistance, (f) Final evaluation report, and (g) Notices
of unsatisfactory service or act and suspension.
The agreement’s stated purposes best describe the overall strategy of the
teacher evaluation process. According to the agreement:
The purposes of these procedures are to evaluate employee performance,
provide assistance and remediation to employees whose performance is
less than satisfactory, impose discipline where appropriate, and continue
to improve the quality of educational services provided by employees.
(United Teachers Los Angeles, 2001, p. 51)
For its part, the recent school district policy, Policy Bulletin 1594, “Performance
Evaluation for Certificated Bargaining Unit Personnel” (Los Angeles Unified
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
School District, 2005), describes in detail the evaluation process. The guidelines
include Section I: Purpose; Section II: Personnel to be evaluated and required
forms; Section III: Frequency of evaluations; Section IV: Administrators
responsible for evaluations; Section V: Sequence of events; and Section VI:
Distribution of Forms. With this document, this study’s first research question
was addressed.
Section I: Purpose. The purpose of the Performance Evaluation for
Certificated Bargaining Unit Personnel is to assist in implementing the
requirements of the California Education Code Section 44664 and Article X of the
District-UTLA Agreement.
Section II: Personnel to be Evaluated and Required Forms. This section
describes the personnel to be evaluated according to this policy. This group
includes instructional personnel and support services personnel, with classroom
teachers being considered instructional personnel. According to the policy, the
final evaluation report is aligned with the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession. The report is “also based upon the K-12 academic content standards
in the appropriate grade span or the core academic subject area in which the
teacher is assigned” (LAUSD, 2005, p. 2).
Section III: Frequency of Evaluations. The district policy mirrors that
which is described in the California Education Code. Permanent teachers are to
be evaluated at least every other year and non-permanent teachers are to be
evaluated at least once each school year. The policy also mentions that the recent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
legislative changes, which allow teachers and their administrators to agree to
evaluations completed in cycles of up to five years, has not been adopted by the
district.
Section IV: Administrators Responsible for Evaluations. The policy states
that principals at each school site are responsible for evaluating teachers.
Section V: Sequence of Events. The policy describes the four general
events that occur when a teacher is evaluated. The first event involves the
creation and approval of an initial planning sheet. The initial planning sheet,
provided by the evaluator, is completed by the employee and returned to the
evaluator by the 6th week of the employee’s regular assignment basis. The sheet
should include the employee’s responsibilities as described in Article X, Section
4.1 of the District-UTLA Agreement. If the planning sheet is not returned to the
administrator in a timely manner, the administrator can create an initial planning
sheet for the employee based on the content of the meeting with the employee and
administrator as described in the following section.
The next event is the initial planning conference. This is described in the
district-union contract, as well. The conference should be held by the evaluator
(i.e., the school’s principal), by the 8th week of the employee’s regular
assignment basis. According to the policy, the administrator should discuss and
emphasize the criteria to be used in the final evaluation report. During the
conference, the principal and teacher should work cooperatively to establish the
employee’s objectives for the year. If there is a disagreement about the objectives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
or if any modifications are made, the employee can note the disagreement on the
form and appeal the matter to the next administrative level in accordance with the
union contract.
Observations, documentation of performance, and assistance are next in
the sequence of events. Observations are to be followed by conferences, and
evaluated in relation to the stated objectives. If problems are identified in the
observations, specific written recommendations for improvements are to be made
in addition to offers of assistance and guidance, plus provision to the employee of
a written summary within four working days after the conference that documents
the observations, advisory conferences, and assistance offered or provided.
Beyond this, “if an evaluator anticipates that an employee may receive a
‘Below Standard Performance’ rating on the final evaluation report, the evaluator
should consult with the appropriate Staff Relations Coordinator and notify the
appropriate local district administrator by January 16” (LAUSD, 2005, p. 6). The
principal also needs to notify the employee in writing of the possibility of issuing
such a rating, and continue to offer assistance and guidance to the employee.
The last event of the teacher evaluation process, according to the district
policy, consists of having the principal prepare and issue the final evaluation
report, not fewer than 30 calendar days before the regularly scheduled start date of
the teacher’s assignment for the current school year. Also, the principal should
hold a conference with the employee to discuss the contents of the final
evaluation report. When the final evaluation report is marked “Below Standard
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Performance,” the principal should describe in writing the area(s) of Below
Standards Performance, together with recommendations for improvement and the
assistance given and to be given. A copy of the report should be given to the
teacher at this conference. Evaluations are not considered a public record.
The review of the documents mentioned indicates what the teacher
evaluation process should be, yet the surveys and interviews depict the reality.
The reality is that the process is not carried out as the district policy states it
should be, as will be demonstrated in the next section. As shown by the teacher
survey and interview sections provided above, most teachers that participated in
the survey indicated that they were knowledgeable about the policy. Through the
interviews, it became clear that most teachers who have over five years of
experience were knowledgeable about the process, but those who had fewer years
of experience with the school district
were not.
Research Question 2: How Does the School Carry Out Teacher Evaluation?
Survey
Specifically, questions 7 through 26 in the teacher survey
(Appendix A) are related to this second research question. Questions 7, 8, 10, and
14 are especially related to the extent to which the administration actively
participates in the formal evaluation process as mandated by the California
Education Code. For their part, questions 17, 20, 22, and 26 specifically relate to
on-going teacher supervision by administrators, apart from the Stull process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
For questions 7 through 26, and as described in the first research question
section, respondents were asked to circle the most accurate response for each item
from a series of options including (0) Strongly Disagree, (1) Disagree, (2) Agree,
and (3) Strongly Agree. The responses will be broken down into those that relate
to the mandated Stull process and those that relate directly to teacher supervision.
As can be seen from Table 5, the mean response for the selected questions
relating to the Stull process ranged from .78 to 1.36. So on average, teachers
indicated that they disagreed with the statements that reflected the mandated Stull
evaluation process and on-going teacher supervision at their school site.
Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of Teacher Survey Responses to
Questions Number 7, 8, 10 and 14
Valid
Number of
Responses
m
Mean (M) Standard
Deviation
(SD)
7. My administrator frequently
observes my classroom for the
purpose of evaluation.
51 .78 .856
8. My administrator and I often
discuss the instructional
strategies I use in my classroom.
51 .84 .967
10. When my administrator
visits my classroom, he/she
looks for things which we
agreed upon at a pre-conference.
51 1.08 1.017
14. There are alternative
evaluation opportunities (e.g.
PAR, portfolios, etc.) available
at my school.
50 1.36 1.139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Frequency data (Table 6) reported by the teachers that participated in the
survey also supports the data presented above, which shows that, on average,
teachers disagreed with the statements that reflected the mandated Stull process.
Table 6: Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions
Number 7, 8, 10 and 14
Frequency Valid
Percentage
7. My administrator frequently observes my
classroom
for the purpose of evaluation.
Strongly Disagree 23 45.1
Disagree 18 35.3
Agree 8 15.7
Strongly Agree 2 3.9
Total 51 100.0
8. My administrator and I often discuss the
instructional strategies I use in my
classroom.
Strongly Disagree 24 47.1
Disagree 15 29.4
Agree 8 15.7
Strongly Agree 4 7.8
Total 51 100.0
10. When my administrator visits my
classroom, he/she looks for things which we
agreed upon at a pre-conference.
Strongly Disagree 19 37.3
Disagree 14 27.5
Agree 1 3 25.5
Strongly Agree 5 9.8
Total 51 100.0
14. There are alternative evaluation
opportunities (e.g. PAR, portfolios, etc.)
available at my school.
Strongly Disagree 16 32
Disagree 10 20
Agree 14 28
Strongly Agree 10 20
Total (1 missing) 50 98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
The survey data (Table 7) also indicates correlations. Specifically, there is
a significant and positive correlation at the .01 level between how frequently an
administrator visits a classroom for the purpose of evaluation and how often the
respondent and the administrator discusses the instructional strategies used in the
teacher’s classroom (r=.877, p<.000). A positive and significant relationship is
also evident between how frequently an administrator visits a classroom and the
other selected questions that deal with the Stull process.
Table 7 Significant and Positive Correlation Between the Classroom
Observation Frequency and Questions Number 8, 10 and 14
Survey Question 7. My administrator frequently observes
my classroom for the purpose of
evaluation.
8. My administrator and I often
discuss the instructional strategies I
use in my classroom.
Pearson Correlation .877
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
10. When my administrator visits
my classroom, he/she looks for
things which we agreed upon at a
pre-conference.
Pearson Correlation .745
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
14. There are alternative evaluation
opportunities (e.g. PAR, portfolios,
etc.) available at my school.
Pearson Correlation .290
Sig. (2-tailed) .041
Questions 17, 18, 20, and 21 relate to on-going teacher supervision by
administrators outside of the Stull process. As can be seen from Table 8, the
average response from the teachers that participated in the survey is that they tend
to disagree with the survey comments regarding administration’s supervision.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 8
Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses to
Questions Number 17, 18, 20 and 21
Valid
Number
of
Responses
(N)
Mean (Ml Standard
Deviation
(SD)
17. The administration
frequently observes my
classroom.
50 .80 .756
18. Other instructional support
staff (e.g. coaches, counselors,
etc.) frequently observes my
classroom.
50 1.16 .934
20.1 have discussions with
administrators regarding my
teaching.
50 1.04 .880
21.1 have discussions with
instructional support staff (not
including administrators)
regarding my teaching.
50 1.54 .994
Interestingly, the survey respondents did tend to frequently agree more
with the support and assistance provided by other instructional staff that did not
include administrators than that of the support and assistance provided by
administrators (Table 9). This might be reflective of the site’s large number of
teachers (160) and lack of opportunity or ability for administrators to effectively
evaluate and supervise all teachers that need to be evaluated. Nevertheless, the
staff appeared to agree with the fact that they received support from other
instructional staff.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Table 9 Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Questions
Number 17, 18, 20 and 21
Frequency Valid
Percent
17. The administration frequently observes my
classroom.
Strongly Disagree 19 38
Disagree 23 46
Agree 7 14
Strongly Agree 1 2
Total 51 100.0
18. Other instructional support staff (e.g.
coaches, counselors, etc.) frequently observes
my classroom.
Strongly Disagree 1 3 26
Disagree 21 42
Agree 1 1 22
Strongly Agree 5 10
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
20.1 have discussions with administrators
regarding my teaching.
Strongly Disagree 15 30
Disagree 21 42
Agree 1 1 22
Strongly Agree 3 6
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
21.1 have discussions with instructional support
staff (not including administrators) regarding
my teaching.
Strongly Disagree 10 20
Disagree 1 1 22
Agree 21 42
Strongly Agree 8 16
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
The survey data (Table 10) indicates a correlation as well. There was a
significant and positive correlation at the .01 level between how frequently other
instructional support staff observe the respondents’ classroom and having
discussions with that instructional staff (r =.609, p<.000).
Table 10 Significant and Positive Correlation Between the Classroom
Observation Frequency and Having Discussions about Teaching
Survey Question 18. Other instructional support
staff (e.g. coaches, counselors,
etc.) frequently observes my
classroom.
21.1 have discussions with
instructional support staff
(not including administrators)
regarding my teaching.
Pearson
Correlation
.609
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Interviews
The teacher survey (Appendix A) addressed this study’s second research
question, “How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?” The extent to
which the administration actively participated in the formal evaluation process as
mandated by the California Education Code and the on-going teacher supervision
by administrators was also addressed by several specific question in the interview.
Again, for the purposes of categorizing, the responses will be broken down into
those that relate to the mandated Stull process and those that relate to teacher
supervision outside of the Stull process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Questions four and five of the teacher interview are: “Describe your
experience with the evaluation process,” and “What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the evaluation process at this school?” The interviews produced
data that supports certain information produced by the surveys, which is that the
frequency of the administrator’s visits increased instructional dialogues and led to
a perceived improvement in teacher practice.
Unfortunately, the teacher interviews also indicated that a teacher’s
veteran status affected who fully participated in the Stull process. One teacher
explains that with a previous administration the most common problem was:
That for the senior teachers, tenure teachers, they would never come to
your room at all. They would say, ‘We know you are doing a good job,’
and they would just write it up and have you sign it and that would be the
most common thing. (Personal communication, January 24, 2005)
Along with the lack of visits, the quality of discussions over a teacher’s practice
was also noted. Through the interviews there appeared to be a need such for
discussions. A first year teacher at the site for examples commented the
following:
I thought I’d be evaluated but the person never showed up. So I’m sure at
some point I will. I imagine. I mean, quite honestly, the various
administrators are probably busy taking care of the day to day concerns of
the school and I’d bet the evaluations probably get pushed off. I know
that mine never happened when it was supposed to and I’m sure that when
we do, I’ll make a big effort to go make sure that those evaluations
happen. I’m just thinking that because it seems to be a big problem; it’s
simply an unnecessarily complicated process when they could just simply
pop in for the better part of an hour to watch. (Personal communication,
January 26, 2005)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Similatly, the assistant principal over curriculum and instruction stated the
following when discussing the Stull process:
I try to [evaluate] but a lot of times, just because of the way the process is,
and the way our day is, and our time spent, we don’t get enough time to
spend in the teacher’s class observing, and just procrastination, so all the
teachers that need to be Stulled every year don’t [get evaluated], (Personal
communication, February 4, 2005)
Beyond this complaint was another, that the Stull process is the administrator’s
only way to remove ineffective teachers. As the AP explained:
We have the two to three year process of getting rid of a teacher on
campus. You’ve got to spend so much time doing corrective behavior
because you sincerely want to make that person a better teacher or you’re
doing corrective behavior because you can document and so you can hurry
up and get rid of them, so when you get to that point, no one can question
it. (Personal communication, February 4, 2005)
Returning to teacher respondents, many noted that the true areas for improving
instruction come not from the Stull process, but from the school’s built-in,
numerous professional development session opportunities, common planning
time, and informal conversation outside the evaluation with administrators and
colleagues.
Questions seven and eight are reflective of this subtopic as it relates to the
second research question. Question seven asks, “Outside of the evaluation
process, what types of interactions do/have you engaged in with administration,
colleagues, and other educators regarding instruction?,” while question eight asks,
“Outside the evaluation process, what type of instructional feedback are you
given?”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
A few of the teachers interviewed shared that the current administrators
are active in supervision and have many opportunities for informal instructional
interactions and feedback. The same first year teacher that expressed the lack of
formal Stull observations mentioned:
At this school, there is almost daily interaction with the various
administrators. The principal is very good ... top notch; I see her almost
every day, she’s got a nice word and there is always an opportunity, if you
have a concern, to go and talk about it. So I have found the administration
to be very open at the school site to discussing anything that is needed.
(Personal communication, January 24, 2005)
The other interview participants’ responses supported the data from the
surveys indicating that if there is a process that is truly impacting teacher practice,
it is the assistance by instructional staff that support and coach teachers in
curriculum design and instruction. All sixteen teachers interviewed, along with
the administrators, gave examples of the various opportunities on the site for
interactions dealing with instruction and providing feedback to teachers. The
teacher who had previously indicated frustration with the Stull process shared this
statement:
We have a lot of meetings with colleagues. In terms of administrators, we
have a general thing, there’s no personal involvement with the
administrator relative to past work or teaching. You’re kind of aware that
they want this, that, or other, and the district has its guidelines, but there is
no real collaboration [with administrators]. The collaboration does exist
with the teachers. (Personal communication, February 2, 2005)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Another teacher explains other opportunities for improvement outside of
the Stull process, including instructional interaction with other colleagues and
self-reflection:
I have done the California writing project several times, which really
improved my practice. I have done the California literature Project; I have,
through UCLA ... taken their workshops, and when I got my national
board certification, I had to do a whole lot of self-analysis. (Personal
communication, January 24, 2005)
Through the interviews, teachers were also able to mention their structured
opportunities to discuss instruction and obtain suggestions for improving teacher
practice in the classroom. As one teacher explains,
We have faculty meetings, we have track meetings, we have groups that
we have to meet to go and prepare our lesson plans under a certain system
of the standards. There’s about five or six different things on the agenda
rotating every single week. (Personal communication, December 17, 2004)
Observations
Observations of regular school activities were also used to explore the
second research question, “How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?,”
and to determine the extent to which the administration actively participates in the
formal evaluation process, as mandated by the California Education Code, and the
on-going teacher supervision by administrators, outside of the Stull process.
Through the lens of the Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames, including
human resource, symbolic, structural, and political, several different attempts to
observe how the school carried out the process did not result in a single
observation verifying this process. Using the structural frame to analyze the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
problem, one can conclude that the process is faulty from an organizational
viewpoint, and not in actual practice. From a political viewpoint, the interviews
revealed that some teachers’ status or seniority within the school district
determined whether they participated in the process at all. But since the process
and the results are confidential between the administrator and teacher, perhaps
this confidentiality made the process difficult to detect in general school activities.
The several different attempts to observe and address the issue of carrying
out teacher evaluation included teacher classroom visits, departmental meetings,
track meetings, professional development days, and office observations. The
survey results and interview data reveal a failure to integrate the teacher
evaluation process with general school activities.
Documents’ Review
In addition to the research tools mentioned above, the different documents
listed in the document review tool (Appendix D) were evaluated. The teacher
evaluation procedure was described very generally in the Stull Bill and the
Education Code Sections 44660-44665, while the district policy bulletin on
evaluating certified personnel and the collective bargaining agreement provided
more detail. Both of these district-created and approved documents are consistent
with the education code regarding teacher evaluation.
Other school-distributed documents like the single school site plan and the
school site council meeting notes did not address or describe the teacher
evaluation process. These last two documents are significant to the document
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
review since they represent the latest compliance items from the federal funds
received under the Title 1, No Child Left Behind legislation.
The school studied receives over $500,000 in Title 1 funds. Creating and
developing a single site plan for student achievement among key school
stakeholder is a clear requirement for the funds. The document confirms the
barriers to and actions towards addressing these concerns. The teacher evaluation
process was not listed as either a barrier to or an action towards obstacles.
In addition, the creation and active status of a school site council,
composed of key stakeholders, is a requirement for the federal funds. While the
council began to meet just a few months ago, the teacher evaluation process has
not been listed on the agenda or mentioned in its meetings as a topic of concern.
Research Question 3: What Factors Have Shaped This School Level Effort?
Survey
The teachers’ perceptions of the school culture and their own beliefs are
expressed in the survey (Appendix A), in questions thirty three through fifty two.
Specific questions and responses from those surveys are analyzed. Again, for
purposes of categorization, this section will review the data collected through the
teacher’s perception and beliefs.
Table 11 indicates that the mean responses for the selected questions
ranged from .80 to 1.13. So on average, teachers indicated that they are in the
indifferent regarding the selected statements that reflected the school culture. The
mean ranged from 1.96 to 2.02.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Table 11 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses
to Questions Number 35, 38, 39, and 43
Valid
Number
of
Responses
m
Mean
m
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
35.1 believe in the goals and
objectives of this school.
51 1.96 .824
38.1 am satisfied with the
professional competence and
teaching ability of my
teaching colleagues.
51 2.02 .860
39.1 am satisfied with the
professional competence and
leadership ability of the
administration.
51 1.71 3.158
43. Teachers have an active
role in making decisions for
the school.
51 1.69 .836
Looking at frequency data (Table 12) for the selected questions, a pattern
emerges, a pattern that is consistent with teachers indicating that they are in
agreement with the goals/objectives of the school and are confident in the
professional competence of their colleagues, but are much more critical of the
administration. For instance, while 45.1% of the teachers that participated in the
survey indicated that they were satisfied with the professional competence and
teaching ability of their teaching colleagues, only 31.4% agreed with the
professional competence and leadership ability of the administration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Table 12 Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Selected
Questions Number 35, 38, 39, and 43
Frequency Valid
Percentage
3 5 .1 believe in the goals and objectives of
this school.
Strongly Disagree 3 5.9
Disagree 9 17.6
Agree 26 51.0
Strongly Agree 13 25.5
Total 51 100.0
38.1 am satisfied with the professional
competence and teaching ability of my
teaching colleagues.
Strongly Disagree 3 5.9
Disagree 9 17.6
Agree 23 45.1
Strongly Agree 16 31.4
Total 51 100.0
3 9 .1 am satisfied with the professional
competence and leadership ability of the
administration.
Strongly Disagree 9 17.6
Disagree 22 43.1
Agree 15 31.4
Strongly Agree 4 7.8
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
43. Teachers have an active role in
making decisions for the school.
Strongly Disagree 5 9.8
Disagree 13 25.5
Agree 26 51.0
Strongly Agree 7 13.7
Total 51 100.0
Interviews
Questions 16 through 20 in the teacher interview (Appendix B) and
questions 8 through 18 in the administrators interview (Appendix C) addressed
school culture. A prominent school culture became evident through the in-depth
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
interviews. The data obtained also supports the data collected from the surveys,
in which it is clear that the principal has created and maintained a culture of
distributive leadership (Spillane, Halveson & Diamond, 2001; Elmore, 2004).
The principal explains her leadership style and the culture that it has created:
Not top down management but bottom up. So I mean we, meaning every
one, but especially administration, realize that we are not really in the
classroom teaching, that the teacher is, so the teacher really knows best
and its our job to kind of support that and create an environment where
they can do, you know, what they do best, and what they do best might be
a certain kind of teaching, or they might know that they need certain kinds
of strategies, that they need this kind of professional development. I think
that’s it. And over the years we have created a family feeling here. And I
think those two put together leads to our success. (Personal
communication, January 28, 2005)
Both of the assistant principals interviewed also described the same style
of leadership that has created a culture of teacher empowerment leading to high
student self-efficacy and academic achievement. One of the school’s assistant
principals describes this leadership style as enabling the school philosophy: “The
view and focus of the school is known by everybody. All the people involved, the
teachers, the parents and the administration” (Personal communication, January
31,2005).
Describing where she believes the leadership comes from, the principal
states, “I believe our coaches are leaders, our department chairs are leaders, we
have track leaders, so in our school we expect them to be just that” (Personal
communication, January 28, 2005). The AP over instruction similarly describes
the source of leadership at the site:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
I would have to say our leadership is spread around ... Our principal...
cares about other people’s opinion, cares about the staffs opinion,
UTLA’s chapter chair’s opinion, what SBM wants to say about it, what
SSC wants to say about it, the de facto leaders, how they feel about it, so
politics dictate some part of it. (Personal communication, February 4,
2005)
On the other hand, some teachers in the interviews, specifically those that
are newer to the school site, indicate a more traditional, structural model of
leadership, one that comes directly from the administration and more specifically
from the principal: “The principal is definitely the leader of the school; she really
sets a very comfortable tone, she’s positive” (Personal communication, February
4,2005). However, in response to the question, “Where does the leadership come
from at the school site?,” teachers answered differently. Several mentioned that it
comes directly from the leaders, but others pointed to the instructional support
staff such as coaches, mentors, peers, literacy cadre members, and even “de facto
leaders” (Personal communication, February 4, 2005). As one teacher explained,
leadership at the school comes from:
Key teachers, who are at the forefront of things. I think some are veteran
teachers, some are mid-line, mid-life, I should say ... but also what I term
‘Louisiana backwater’ politics. In other words, it is not straight politics ...
lobbying-type of getting things done on the side type of politics. (Personal
communication, January 28, 2005)
The interviews therefore expressed the collaborative relationship between the
staff and key stakeholders at the school site. This culture of collaboration has
empowered the instructional staff, and more importantly the students, who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
demonstrate this empowerment in their academic achievement. This fact will be
presented in the
following section, which focuses on teacher beliefs.
Teachers’ Own Beliefs. In order to address the third research question, “What
factors have shaped this school level effort?,” this study also looked at the
teachers’ own beliefs. It has become clear from the data presented so far that
other factors besides the teacher evaluation process have shaped the school’s
academic achievement, and prominent among these factors is teachers’ own
beliefs. Questions 47, 50 and 51 from the teacher survey (Appendix A), were
analyzed and interpreted to determine these beliefs.
Table 13 indicates that, on average, teachers were in agreement with
comments regarding their abilities to positively affect students’ academic
achievement, and regarding a positive belief in their students’ capabilities. The
mean ranged from 2.29 to 2.53, which is a very different response from those to
other questions in the survey.
Table 14 also supported the data analysis and interpretation above. The
frequency data clearly demonstrated teachers’ high agreement with comments
regarding their beliefs. The item that best summarizes the teacher’s outlook on
the student’s capabilities was item number 51, “I believe that all students can
achieve at high levels.” Fifty four percent of the teachers surveyed strongly
agreed with this statement, while 34% stated they agreed. An extensive body of
research supports the fact that teachers’ expectations can influence student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
performance (Andrews, Soder & Jacoby, 1986; Bamburg & Andrews, 1989;
Mackler, 1969; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1969).
Table 13 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses
to Questions Number 47, 50 and 51
Valid
Number of
Responses
m
Mean (Ml Standard
Deviation
(SD)
47. When I really try, I can get
through to most students.
51 2.53 .674
50. When the grades/proficiency
levels of my students improve, it
is usually because I used my
effective teaching approaches.
49 2.29 .736
51.1 believe that all students
can achieve at high levels.
50 2.38 .780
The survey data (Table 15) indicated some correlations as well. There
was a significant and positive correlation at the .01 level between believing that
all students can achieve at high levels and agreeing with the comment that when a
teacher really tries, he or she can get through to most students (r = .662, p < .000).
There is also a correlation between believing that all students can achieve at high
levels and agreeing with the statement that when the grades/proficiency levels of
students improve, it is usually because the teacher used effective teaching
approaches (r = .537, p < .000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Table 14 Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Selected
Questions Number 47, 50 and 51
Frequen
cy
Valid
Percent
47. When I really try, I can get through to most
students.
Strongly Disagree 1 2.0
Disagree 2 3.9
Agree 17 33.3
Strongly Agree 31 60.8
Total 51 100.0
50. When the grades/proficiency levels of my
students improve, it is usually because I used my
effective teaching approaches.
Strongly Disagree 1 2.0
Disagree 5 10.2
Agree 22 44.9
Strongly Agree 21 42.9
Total (2 missing) 49 100.0
51.1 believe that all students can achieve at high
levels.
Strongly Disagree 1 2.0
Disagree 6 12.0
Agree 16 32.0
Strongly Agree 27 54.0
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
Table 15 Significant and Positive Correlation Between Believing all
Students can Achieve and Selected Questions Number 47 and 50
Survey Question 51.1 believe that all students can achieve
at high levels.
47. When I really try, I can get
through to most students.
Pearson
Correlation
.662
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
50. When the
grades/proficiency levels of my
students improve, it is usually
because I used my effective
teaching approaches.
Pearson
Correlation
.537
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Teacher Interviews
Specifically, the teacher interview (Appendix B) addressed teacher beliefs.
Question 22 asked, “Do you believe that you are a valued member in this school?
Why or why not?” Question twenty three asked, “What factors do you believe
contribute to student learning?”
The majority of the teachers that participated in the interview indicated
that they did feel valued because their participation in decision-making,
instructional improvement, and individual needs were often met. As one of the
interviewed teachers explained:
Yes, I do feel appreciated. I feel like I can have input. I think I know
I am a good teacher, I know that is appreciated. I have been given an
opportunity to work part-time. I know that I contribute. (Personal
communication, January 24, 2005)
Another veteran teacher explains how the faculty association, whose membership
is open to all teachers who pay the association dues, makes the teachers feel
appreciated:
The faculty association ... they started having these really nice
brunches for us because on professional development Tuesday, the
kids get out early, there isn’t enough time to have both nutrition and
lunch, so we have brunch. This past Tuesday it was really nice, the
faculty association, you have to join, you know pay your dues, they
had a nice brunch for us, a nice spread too. So they are talking about
having brunch on PD Tuesdays for us at least once a month. I know
when people have a marriage, a baby, or some life event, they will do
a plant, a card, or call. (Personal communication, January 28, 2005)
Many of the teachers interviewed also expressed an even more significant effort at
the school that is almost subconsciously performed:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
There is an attitude at [the school site] ... that this is an above average
school and the kids who are here need to behave in that way. So if a kid is
going down through the hallway with his uniform untucked, teachers will
go and call him on that. By insisting that shirts are tucked in, there is no
gum allowed, that ‘You are at [the school site] young man, you don’t turn
in homework like this,’ there is just an automatic attitude that this is a
better place and that therefore instills in the kids, whether they like it or
not, ‘You better tow the line,’ because its like you are in a semi-private
school, it’s like a magnet school. (Personal communication, January 21,
2005)
In short, teacher beliefs that essentially trickle down into student beliefs
are an indirect yet core factor in the school’s academic success. One teacher
interviewed explains how teachers’ beliefs pervade students’ beliefs about
themselves:
They’re being optimistic about the future, seeing education that is
something that is a benefit to them. Seeing that teachers care about them,
that makes them believe in themselves. (Personal communication,
January 25, 2005)
The administrators also echoed the same belief that manifested itself in an indirect
effort. An assistant principal explains how this effort is active in the school:
I’ve been at 4 other schools, the other schools were high schools, so you
have sports teams, school spirit, you don’t see that in middle and
elementary schools, but here there’s a sense of, we are [the school site]
because we are special because ... you fill it in with what ever you want
but people even outside of [the school site] say, ‘Oh you work at there, oh
that’s a good school, you’ve got the good students.’ They think [the
school site] is a magnet school, that [the school site] is a high achieving
school and really it is an average school, when you really look at it, what
is going on at [the school site], we do have good students because we tell
them, ‘You have to be good to be here,’ and I think the elementary
teachers are telling them, ‘You better be good at [the school site],’
expectations are high. We have a saying, you know, ‘the [the school site]
way,’ we created a belief, this little mist around [the school site] that
makes it seem like something else and it works. The teachers buy into it,
students buy into it, parents buy into it, but if I had to break it down, we
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
are an average middle school. (Personal communication, February 4,
2005)
In addition to valuing students, the belief that as teachers they are valued was
evident in all the interviews conducted with the instructional staff, whether
respondents had been at the site for 1 year or for 20 years.
Observations
Observations of regular school activities were also used to answer this
study’s third research question, “What factors have shaped this school level
effort?” The teachers’ perception of the school culture and teachers’ own beliefs
were addressed in the observations. Observations for this research question and
subtopic area were also conducted during teacher visits, departmental meetings,
track meetings, professional development days, and office observations.
Once again, using Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four organizational frames,
including human resource, symbolic, structural, and political, several different
attempts were made to observe what factors have shaped the site’s school-level
effort, as well as teachers’ perception of the school culture and teachers’ own
beliefs. The frames that were most relevant to these observations were the
structural, human resource, and symbolic frames.
The first intense observation was done in the school office while waiting
for teachers and/or administrators to interview. A person can really learn a lot
about a school just by sitting in its main office. In this place, there are usually
several friendly office workers who run the office like a well-oiled machine,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
welcoming all visitors. All teachers, each categorized by his or her specific track,
have their individual mailboxes, with their daily bulletin in place each morning;
time cards, neatly arranged for a quick sign-in and out; several boxes for
attendance rosters; a sign that indicates what periods meet, since the school now
runs on a block schedule; a telephone available for staff; and a small office for the
personnel issues, along with several chairs for visitors. The school office operates
in a very structured manner, which helps communicate efforts that impact
instructional achievement.
The office and the school’s main hallways are covered with positive
statements and pictures. There are pictures in the office portraying the benefits of
an education, personal success, and teamwork, as well as a plaque celebrating the
person for whom the school is named. The main hallway by the office also has
several glass showcases with trophies and minutes from School Based
Management and School Site Council meetings, emphasizing the proud efforts of
achievement and collaboration.
The observations at the department meetings, professional development
meetings, and faculty (operational) meetings included introducing strategies and
efforts such as school-wide culminating and backwards planning in a very human
resources type of environment. The teachers’ needs were addressed when
planning standards-based lessons and units. Teacher recognition and celebrations
were observed as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Documents’ Review
In addition to the research mentioned above, the different documents listed
in the document review tool (Appendix D) were evaluated. Within these
documents, the single site plan for student achievement addressed the relevant
barriers and action plans in distinct core academic areas that are improving
student achievement, thereby addressing the third research question, “What
factors have shaped this school level effort?” With Title 1 funds, the school is
able to provide coaches in different content areas that, as indicated in the surveys,
have really impacted teacher practices in the classroom. The introduction of
coaches and specific actions to address academic achievement barriers have made
the school as successful as it has been, as
noted through the other data gathering tools.
Research Question 4: How effective is the teacher evaluation processes at
the school level?
Survey
Specific data on the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation process was
obtained through various sections of the teacher survey. These sections are
teacher evaluation, on-going teacher supervision, and school efforts. Specifically,
questions 12, 16, and 25 address the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation
process at the school site studied. The subtopic, teachers’ perception of school
efforts as they may have led to school improvement, is also addressed in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
survey through the school efforts section of the survey, specifically questions 26
through 29.
The data produced through the surveys (Table 16) indicates that on
average, most teachers disagree that the teacher evaluation process is effective in
improving teacher practice and that the process has led to professional growth. On
the other hand, teachers are more likely to agree with comments that they have
opportunities for professional development and to participate in collaborative
instructional activities. Therefore, while the teacher evaluation process might not
be perceived as being effective, other efforts such as a structured, consistent
professional development session and collaborative opportunities are effective in
impacting teachers’ instruction. The mean ranged from 1.04 to 2.10.
The frequency data (Table 17) also supports this perception. Most
teachers tended to disagreed with comments that regarded the teacher evaluation
process as being effective in improving teacher practice: a cumulative 68% of
respondents indicated that they either strongly disagreed or disagreed, while
cumulatively, 57.1% indicated that they either strongly disagreed or disagreed
with the comment that their participation in the evaluation process has led to
professional growth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Table 16 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Teacher Survey Responses
to Selected Questions Number 12, 16, 25, 26,27, 28 and 29
Valid
Number
of
Responses
m
Mean (Ml Standard
Deviation
(SD)
12. The teacher evaluation
feedback assists me improving
my teacher practice.
50 1.04 .968
16. I believe that my
participation in the teacher
evaluation process at this
school has led to my
professional growth.
49 1.37 .929
25. I believe that my
administration’s supervision
o f instruction improves my
instructional practice.
48 1.13 .914
2 6 .1 believe that other
instructional support staffs
supervision of instruction
improves my instructional
practice
50 1.56 .993
2 7 .1 have multiple
opportunities throughout the
year to participate in
professional development
activities.
50 2.10 .953
28. Teachers are encouraged
to collaborate on instructional
matters on a regular basis.
50 2.06 .913
2 9 .1 collaborate with others
on instructional matters on a
regular basis.
50 2.02 .979
On the other hand, the majority of teachers that participated in the
survey indicated that they agreed with comments stating that other efforts, such as
professional development, teacher collaboration efforts, and instructional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
supervision by non-administrators were more effective. For example,
cumulatively, 56% of the teachers that participated in the survey indicated that
they agreed with the statement that other instructional support staffs supervision
of instruction improved their instructional practice. This is in contrast to the
teachers’ view of administration’s supervision.
Table 17
Frequency of the Teacher Survey Responses to Selected Questions Number 12,
16, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29
Frequency Valid
Percentage
12. The teacher evaluation feedback assists
me improving my teacher practice.
Strongly Disagree 18 36.0
Disagree 16 32.0
Agree 12 24.0
Strongly Agree 4 8.0
Total (1 m issing) 50 100.0
16. I believe that my participation in the
teacher evaluation process at this school has
led to my professional growth.
Strongly Disagree 9 18.4
Disagree 19 38.8
Agree 15 30.8
Strongly Agree 6 12.2
Total (2 missing) 49 100.0
25. I believe that my administration’s
supervision of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
Strongly Disagree 14 29.2
Disagree 17 35.4
Agree 14 27.5
Strongly Agree 3 5.9
Total (3 missing) 48 100.0
2 6 .1 believe that other instmctional support
staffs supervision of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
Strongly Disagree 9 18.0
Disagree 13 26.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Agree 19 38.0
Strongly Agree 9 18.0
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
2 7 .1 have multiple opportunities throughout
the year to participate in professional
development activities.
Strongly Disagree 4 8.0
Disagree 8 16.0
Agree 17 34.0
Strongly Agree 21 42.0
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
28. Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on
instructional matters on a regular basis.
Strongly Disagree 3 6.0
Disagree 10 20.0
Agree 18 36.0
Strongly Agree 19 38.0
Total (1 missing) 50 100.0
Interviews
Through the teacher interviews, research question number four is
addressed: “How effective is the teacher evaluation processes at the school
level?” Question number six of the interview asks, “What elements of the
evaluation process are effective in improving teacher practice?”
A teacher with 18 years of experience at the school site expressed the
following:
When I was a beginning teacher, it was a valuable experience because my
principals were very good about coming in and observing and doing an
initial lesson with me and they would come in to observe that lesson and
they would give me feedback. It was mostly about that lesson, and yes, as
they went in with their veteran expert eyes they could see certain things
around classroom that needed improvements and they would give me that
feedback, feedback that I can apply or implement. (Personal
communication, January 28, 2005)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Another teacher who has over 16 years of teaching experience at the site
similarly concluded that an administrator’s presence does make a difference in his
practice. Specifically, this former United Teacher Los Angeles (UTLA)
chairperson stated:
I think that the administrator does make a presence; it lets you know that
they are there, they are doing their job. Number one, if they connect to the
teachers, the teachers that are teaching the curriculum they should be
teaching ... So their presence is good, it means you are doing your job and
also means that the teachers are doing grade level work, that you’re not
supposed to dumb it down to make it easier for you or the kids. Another
thing happens ... probably because we are the model school and we have
visits, we want people to visit our classrooms. (Personal communication,
January 24, 2005)
The strengths of the teacher evaluation process mentioned in the
interviews included an accountability piece. Several teachers mentioned that
while the Stull process has many ineffective parts, a very effective component is
the personal accountability created through planning, implementing, and
observation by the administrator.
On the other hand, weaknesses mentioned in the interviews included that
the Stull process does not take into account the realities that schools and teachers
face. For example, the school site studied has 3 tracks. The school calendar
dictates that each track is in session for 4 months and off-track for 2; therefore
teachers are coming and going, literally packing up their classrooms, every 4
months. Beyond this, several teachers commented that previous administrators
had procrastinated and evaluated them on the last day of class. For example, one
teacher noted:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
You also hear other teachers, tend to have a very negative report because
the last day they were cleaning and they would go in there and get Stulled.
Those are grounds for grievance. You would grieve those sometimes and
basically say that you have the right to have a fair evaluation. (Personal
communication, January 26, 2005)
Another respondent, a National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) teacher, stated:
I got dinged for not having any ... I didn’t have the standards up. Well, it
was not my classroom because I was a traveling teacher and it was the day
after the room had been painted. It just made me think, ‘What a bonehead
you are, of course I don’t have them up, the room was painted yesterday.’
They are not very in-depth. They don’t really help you be a better teacher,
like it won’t help you improve your practice that much. (Personal
communication, January 24, 2005)
Most teachers who indicated having more than 6 years teaching experience
reflected on the Stull process as being effective when they were beginning
teachers, and a few also indicated that their most positive experience with the
evaluation process came when they participated in an alternative evaluation
process and not the actual Stull process. For example, one NBCT stated:
The best experience I’ve had was an alternative Stull where I basically
kind of did a research project on something I was interested in. I was
really interested in critical thinking and incorporating that in my classroom
so I went out and did a bunch of research on critical thinking. Read several
books on them and designed lessons that highlighted certain critical
thinking skills that I was working on and then I took it to my colleagues,
to the team that I was working with and ran it by them and I got feedback
from them and then I presented all the things I did to the principal and that
was my alternative Stull and that really made a difference in what I did.
Yeah, that was a good experience. I really enjoyed that, it made me a
better teacher. (Personal communication, January 24, 2005)
Thus, while the formal teacher evaluation process does not seem to be very
effective for teachers with several years of experience, other efforts such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
professional development, teacher collaboration, and other processes like the
National Board Certification for teachers appear to be effective.
Observations
Observations of regular school activities also facilitated answering the
fourth research question, “How effective is the teacher evaluation processes at the
school level?” The subject of teachers’ perception of school efforts as they may
have led to school improvement was also addressed through the observations.
Once again, observations for this research question and subtopic area
included teacher visits, departmental meetings, track meetings, professional
development days, and office observations. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) human
resource lens assisted in explaining the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation
process. Most notably, it was observed that teachers had their interests and needs
addressed by the content area coaches, not necessarily by the Stull evaluation
process. For instance, on one specific observation in December, 2004, of a
common planning time session, teachers worked together to plan their
culminating tasks, and were guided by the content area coach (in this case it was
the literacy coach), who was instrumental in directing and leading the planning
session. Other instances of teachers’ having their needs addressed by means other
than the formal Stull process were also noted in the various observations.
Documents’ Review
The different documents as listed in the document review tool (Appendix
D) were examined, yet none truly indicates whether the teacher evaluation process
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
is effective. While the Stull legislation, the education code, and district policy
and bulletins describe the process, the effectiveness of the practice is not
mentioned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter consists of three core parts: (a) summary of the study,
including a review of the major purposes, research questions, and selected
findings; (b) conclusions; and (c) implications for additional research.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
This study described and explored the current teacher evaluation process
and other factors that impact teacher practices at a high performing urban school
setting. The areas that were studied included the teachers’ current knowledge and
perceptions of the teacher evaluation process, the extent to which the
administration actively participated in the formal evaluation process as mandated
by the California Education Code, on-going teacher supervision by
administrators, teachers’ perception of school efforts as they may have led to
school improvement, teachers’ perception of the school culture, and teachers’ own
beliefs.
Research Questions to be Answered
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluations?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluations?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation processes at the school level?
Discussion of Findings
Overall, the data collected in this case study shed light on a phenomenon
that exists in the school studied. This phenomenon consists of several different
factors that have led to the school’s success, and is best described through the
themes that emerged from the data. The themes fall under the grand premise of a
student-centered school culture, and from this foundation comes a unifying vision
or identity, a rigorous standards-based curriculum, instruction and assessment,
distributive leadership, collaboration with parents and community, professional
development, and a democratic decision-making culture.
Unifying Vision
The tools used to collect the data all reflected that a unifying vision has
lead to the student academic achievement at the school studied. The data
collection tools paint a picture of a school that has a rich history of having been
“turned around” from what many interviewees described as a low-performing
school where rigorous instruction did not exist and student behavior was out of
control. This turn-around occurred under the leadership of a charismatic,
resourceful and active leader. The vision created under his administration has
continued to flourish under the leadership of the current administrator. There is a
belief at the school that all students can achieve academic success, and this is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
expected of them. These high expectations are evident in the data collection
tools.
Rigorous Standards-Based Curriculum. Instruction, and Assessment
The data collected also reflects a school-wide focus on a rigorous
standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment. All teachers and
administrators interviewed explained in detail the school-wide efforts for
standards-based culminating projects that have been created through intensive
backwards planning. Although teachers did not indicate that the teacher
evaluation process focused on the implementation of these efforts in their
classrooms, most indicated that they were implementing these efforts and were
supported by the several math, literacy, and science coaches available at the site.
Through local district efforts, the school is also utilizing periodic
assessments in math, English, and science to measure student progress each
quarter throughout the school year. These assessments are based on the district’s
pacing guides for content areas, and are very similar to the California Standards
Tests both in content and structure. Although some of the teachers interviewed
indicated some criticisms of the assessments, they are nevertheless used and
teachers can use the information obtained from them to track their students’
progress. In addition, the periodic assessments enable a teacher to realize what
specific standards the students are having difficulty with, and therefore provide an
opportunity for the teacher to modify his or her practice or to re-teach content.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Distributive Leadership
A major factor in the school’s success that also comes across through the
different data collection tools is that of distributive leadership. Distributive
leadership “is the ‘glue’ of a common task or goal - improvement of instruction -
and a common frame of values for how to approach that task” (Elmore, 2000, p.
15). Through the interviews, the importance of this “glue” became very evident.
Most of the interview participants stated that the administrator’s leadership style
was one of collaboration, team work, and cooperation. At the school, there is an
expectation of staff to be able to provide leadership in both formal and informal
activities.
Collaboration with Parents and Community
The importance of collaboration with the community, including agencies
and parents, is another theme that emerged from the data collection. At the school
studied there is a strong relationship with the local university and with various
community-based organizations.
The former administrator created a strong link with various agencies that
provided much-needed resources such as a school-based community health center,
intensive student tutoring and mentoring, and a parent resource center. These
relationships have been maintained and have even blossomed, resulting not only
in student achievement but also in the wellness of students’ entire families. It is
important to state that the agencies that work with the school both support and
reflect the school’s unifying vision.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
Professional Development
Professional development (PD) also emerged as a means for affecting
teacher practice in the classroom. PD is a prominent feature at the school, and it
apparently took strategic leadership from different agents, including the teachers’
union, local districts, the superintendent, and the school board, to make certain
that professional development sessions were scheduled and occurred at the school
sites throughout the district. Currently, teachers are required to attend two PD
sessions every month and PD sessions are available on buy-back days during
school vacations, with teachers being compensated for their attendance. The PD
sessions observed indicated the push for the rigorous curriculum efforts
mentioned above.
The surveys and interviews indicated the strong influence of PD on
teacher practice in their classroom. The instructional support staff, such as
content area coaches and department leaders, sustained the professional
development effort and provided critical feedback to the faculty. Unfortunately,
only the principal indicated that she includes PD topics in the teacher evaluation
process.
Democratic Decision-Making Culture
The school also has a long tradition of key stakeholder participation in
school- based decision making. School-based management (SBM) was first
implemented at the school in 1996, and through the interviews it became clear
that it played a critical role in the implementation and maintenance of strategic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
efforts to improve student academic achievement. In fact, it was instrumental in
the complete transformation of the school. Through school-based management,
the following significant efforts were implemented: an alternate day block
schedule, school uniforms, alternative teacher performance evaluations, and a
school schedule that includes common planning time for instructional teams that
share the same students in the middle school.
With changes in the California Education Code, Section 64001, the district
also identified the school site council as the key committee at each school site.
School Site Council approves the Single Plan for Student Achievement, a required
document for federal Title 1 funds; therefore, much of the focus has shifted from
school-based management to school site council. However, even though the
focus has occurred, the school faculty voted to retain SBM for school site
decision-making, such as changes to the school schedule or modifying school
rules.
Selected Findings
Through the analysis of the data, the following major findings emerged:
1. The majority of the school site’s teachers have eleven years or over of
teaching experience.
2. Most teachers who participated in the survey indicated they are aware
of and understand the school district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation.
3. Majority of teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed (80.4%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
cumulative percent) that their administrator frequently observes their classroom
for the purpose of evaluation.
4. Most teachers who participated in the teacher survey indicated that
they strongly disagree or disagree with the comment that they discuss
instructional strategies with their administrator (76.5% cumulative percent).
5. Most general school activities and efforts are not linked to the teacher
evaluation process.
6. The majority of teachers who participated in the surveys disagreed that
they have discussions with their administrators regarding their teaching but agreed
that they have discussions with the instructional support staff regarding their
teaching.
7. Teachers at the school site have various opportunities for collaborative
instructional improvement efforts, such as professional development sessions and
common planning time.
8. Teachers are satisfied with the professional competence and teaching
abilities of their teaching colleagues.
9. Teachers are active in decision making at the school site.
10. Teachers have high expectations of the students.
Conclusions
On the basis of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evaluation is
known throughout the teaching faculty and by active administrators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
2. The more teaching experience a teacher has, the more knowledgeable this
teacher is about the teacher evaluation process.
3. Even though most administrators are aware of the teacher evaluation
process, the actual evaluation process is not practical and therefore is not done
consistently.
4. The teacher evaluation process does not reflect the realities of a large
urban school, including various tracks, traveling teachers (to different rooms by
period), and overcrowded conditions.
5. Most teachers are more accepting of feedback and support from colleagues
than from administrators, due to the constant support teachers get from one
another.
6. School efforts at the school site studied are more effective in impacting
and changing teacher practice in the classroom than the teacher evaluation
process.
7. Current school reforms and accountability efforts are not linked to the
teacher evaluation process.
8. A positive school culture and teacher beliefs impact student achievement
much more than the teacher evaluation process.
9. Teachers and administrators have high expectations of students. This is
the core aspect of the themes of the data.
10. Instructional leadership is both informal and formal, and is spread
throughout the school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
These specific conclusions reflect the themes that emerged from the
various data. The core feature of the school that drives all other efforts is the
student-centered culture. This has lead the school to establish a unifying vision, a
challenging curriculum, instruction and assessment, professional development for
the faculty, key stakeholder decision-making, and a trusting relationship that has
lead to a distributive leadership style on the part of the school principal.
Implications
The following implications are suggested from the results of the study:
1. The teacher evaluation policy needs to be reviewed thoroughly in teacher
preparation courses, so beginning teachers can be informed of the process and use
it to improve their practices.
2. The teacher evaluation legislation should take into account the various
school reform efforts that schools are implementing.
3. The state commission on teacher credentialing should incorporate the
mandated teacher evaluation components into its credential renewal process to
make it practical and useful.
4. Evaluators in the teacher evaluation process should include peers and
colleagues outside of the classroom.
5. The mandated teacher evaluation process should be waived if other
reflective, evaluative processes, such as the National Board Certification, are
implemented and utilized.
6. A separate method to discipline ineffective teachers should be created and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
utilized, instead of the current teacher evaluation process.
7. Current school reform programs, both at the federal and state levels,
should be reflected in the mandated teacher evaluation process in an effort to
make all staff accountable to these reforms.
8. State legislature should work with the teachers’ union to modify the
current mandated teacher evaluation process so that it becomes practical and
reflective of current school reforms and accountability measures.
This case study of a high performing school in the inner city section of
Los Angeles demonstrates what truly impacts academic achievement: this is a
sincere desire to help students and their families achieve success, resulting in a
student-centered school culture. Other school efforts, such as strategic leadership,
professional development, and a rigorous curriculum also represent attempts to
serve students and their families. Unfortunately, the teacher evaluation process is
not reflective of these attempts.
While the current teacher evaluation process is not entirely ineffective, it
minimally impacts teacher practice in the classroom. A more practical, shared
process needs to be collectively created, implemented, and modified according to
changing needs. Until then, schools will continue to submit completed teacher
evaluation forms for compliance requirements, but the true purpose of the Stull
legislation, to improve the quality of educational services, will continue to be
neglected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
REFERENCES
Andrews, R.L., Soder, R., & Jacoby, D. (1986). Principal roles, other in-school
variables, and academic achievement by ethnicity and SES. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.
Association of California School Administrators. (2002). No Child Left Behind
fo r Dummies. Retrieved on August 3, 2004 from http://www.acsa.org.
Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1989). School goals, principals, and achievement.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175-191.
Barrett, J. (2002). CUTA negotiations. The Chico Unified Teachers Association.
Retrieved on September 3, 2004, from http:
www.cusd.chico.kl2.ca.us/~bdillman/NEGO.html
Bathen, S. (1999). Tracing the roots of teacher tenure. California Journal, 4(2),
11-18.
Billingsley, K.L. (2001, February 6). Protecting teacher incompetence in Los
Angeles. Daily Breeze. Retrieved on August 3, 2004 from
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2001/01-02-061b.html.
Bolin, F., & Panaritis, P. (1992). Searching for a common purpose: A perspective
on the history of supervision. In C.D. Glickman (Ed.). Supervision in
transition (pp.30-43). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice
and leadership (3rd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2004). Data-Quest. Retrieved August 15,
2004 from http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession. (1997). Sacramento, CA:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California
Department of Education.
Cheong, G.C. (1971). Can successful teaching be empirically determined?
Journal o f Teacher Education, 27, 37-39.
Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design (2n d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,
4(2), 67-71.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis
in teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D.L. (1997). Teaching for High Standards: What
policymakers need to know and be able to do. Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Dawson, T.C., & Billingsley, K.L. (2000, September). Unsatisfactory
Performance: How California’ s K-12 education system protects
mediocrity and how teacher quality can be improved. San Francisco, CA:
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Decker, M. (2001). Reflections about the development o f California’ s teachers
unions. Costa Mesa: Newport-Mesa Federation of Teachers website.
Retrieved on September 10, 2004 from
http://www.nmft.net/insidenmft/history.htm.
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and Nature. New York: Dover.
EdSource (2004). Teacher quality overview. Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved on August
24, 2004 from http://www.edsource.org/edu_tea.cfin.
Education Codes of California (2004). Thompson- West’ s Annotated Education
Codes. Eagan, MN: Thompson-West.
Elmore, R.F. (2001). Building a New Structure for School Leadership.
Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R.F. (2004). A Plea for Strong Practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3),
42-47.
Gall, M.P., Borg, W.R., Gall, J.P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ginsburg-Block, M.D., & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1998). An evaluation of the relative
effectiveness of NCTM standards-based interventions for low-achieving
urban elementary students. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 90, 560-
569.
Glanz, J. (1998). Histories, antecedents, and legacies of school supervision. In G.
Firth & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook o f research on school supervision
(pp.39-79). New York: Macmillian Library Reference.
Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision for the millennium: A retrospective and
prospective. Focus on Education. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from
http://turbo.kean.edu/~jglanz/glanz6.html
Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the
50 states: 1999-2000 (Research Rep. No. RR-046). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing
and accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 11-14.
Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special techniques fo r the
supervision o f teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Government Codes of California. (2004). Thompson- West’ s Annotated Education
Codes. Eagan, MN: Thompson-West.
Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1987). Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the
nation’ s schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1992). Patterns o f attrition among Indiana teachers,
1965-1987. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing
teacher supply and demand. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Hertert, L., & Teague, J. (2003). Narrowing the achievement gap. Palo Alto:
EdSource.
Howell, P., & Miller, B. (1999). Collective bargaining: Explaining California’ s
System. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
Institute for Learning (2004). The LearningWalk. University of Pittsburg:
Learning Research and Development Center. Retrieved on August 15,
2004 from http://instituteforleaming.org/lw.html.
Johnson, S.M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New
York: Basic Books.
Klein, S.P., Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., & Stecher, B.M. (2000). What do
test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved on July
29, 2004 from http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2003). LAO Analysis o f2002-03 Budget:
Education, Proposition 98 Mandates. Retrieved from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2002/education/ed_04_cc_Prop98_Manda
tes_anl02.htm
Little, J.W., Gerritz, W.H., Stem, D.S., Guthrie, J.W., Kirst, M.W., & Marsh,
D.D. (1987, December). Staff development in California: Public and
personal investments, program patterns, and policy choices. San
Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory & Berkeley, CA: PACE.
Los Angles Unified School District (1999). District Policy Bulletin: Performance
Evaluations for Certificated Bargaining Unit Personnel. Los Angeles,
CA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Los Angeles Unified School District (2005a). Advisory Committees and School
Site Councils (BUL-1231). Los Angeles, CA.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2005b). District Policy Bulletin:
Performance Evaluations fo r Certificated Bargaining Unit Personnel. Los
Angeles, CA.
Mackler, B. (1969). Grouping in the ghetto. Education and Urban Society, 2(1),
80-96
McColskey, W. & Egelson, P. (1993). Designing teacher evaluation systems that
support professional growth. (ERIC-Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 367 662).
McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system
of testing in Texas. In G. Orfield & M.L. Komhaber (eds.), Raising
standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public
education. New York: Century.
Miles, K.H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997) Rethinking the Allocation o f
Teaching Resources: Same Lessons from High Performing Schools.
(CPRE Research Report Series RR-38). University of Pennsylvania:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Morse, J. (2000). Does Texas make the grade? Time Magazine, Retrieved on July
30, 2004 from http://www.time.com/education
Mumane, R., Singer, J., Willet, J. (1988). The career paths of teachers:
Implications for teacher supply and methodological lessons for research.
Educational Researcher, 17(5), 22-30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). Percentage of students at or
above Proficient in mathematics, grade 4 public schools: By state, 1992-
2003. Retrieved July 19, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/stateachieve
-g4-compare.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). Percentage of students at or
above Proficient in reading, grade 4 public schools: By state, 1992-2003.
Retrieved July 19, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/stateachieve
-g4-compare.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington D.C.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996, September).
What matters most: Teaching for America’s future, New York: Author.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L.A. (2004). Teacher supervision and evaluation. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Jossey-Bass Education.
Pajak, E. (2000). Approaches to clinical supervision: Alternatives for improving
instruction (2n d ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers.
Perry, M., Miller, B., Carlos, L., Teague, J., & Fery, S. (2001). Aligning
California’ s education reforms: Progress made and the work that
remains. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new
directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Peterson, K.D., & Chenoweth, T. (1992). Schoolteachers’ control and
involvement in their own evaluation. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 6, 177-189.
Popham, W.J. (1971). Designing teacher evaluation systems. Los Angeles, CA:
The Instructional Objectives Exchange.
Reeves, D.B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning
organizations, 2ndEd. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Resnick, L.B. (1999, June 16). Making America Smarter. Education Week
Century Series 18(40), 38-40. Retrieved on September 3, 2004 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/40resnick.hl 8.
Riley, P.A., Fusano, R., Munk L., & Peterson, R. (2002, March). Contract for
failure: The impact o f teacher union contracts on the quality o f California
Schools. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers'
expectations and pupils' intellectual development New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Ruenzel, D., Carlos, L., Perry, M., Miller, B., & Madison, S. (1999).
Strengthening teacher quality in California: Defining consequences,
building capacity. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
Shields, P.M., Esch, C.E., Humphrey, D.C., Riehl, L.M., Tiffany-Morales, J.D.,
Young, V.M. (2000). The status o f the teaching profession: 2000. An
update to the Teaching and California's Future Task Force. Santa Cruz,
CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Shields, P.M., Esch, C.E., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Chang-Ross, C.M.,
Gallagher, H.A., Guha, R., Tiffany-Morales, J.D., & Woodworth, K.R.
(2003). The status o f the teaching profession 2003. Santa Cruz, CA: The
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Soar, R.S. (1968). New developments in effective teaching. The American
Biology Teacher, 30, 43-47.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating School
Leadership Practice. Educational Researcher, 23-26.
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment Programs. (1997). Sacramento, CA: State Department of
Education.
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001). Professional
Growth Manual. Sacramento, CA: State Department of Education.
Retrieved on August 22, 2004 from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/manuals-
handbooks/PG_Manual_MultSingSubj.pdf.
Strange, J.H. (Ed.). (1997). Evaluating teaching: Guide to current thinking and
best practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Strange, J. H., Helm, V.M., Tucker, P.D. (1995). Evaluation handbook for
professional support personnel. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14, 175-180.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (1999). Supervision that improves teaching. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases
from the field. The Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 15(3), 212-35.
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles o f scientific management. New York: Harper
Bros.
Texas Center for Educational Research. (2000). The cost o f teacher turnover.
Austin, Tx: Texas State Board for Educator Certification.
Townley, A.J., Schmeider-Ramirez, J., Wehmeyer, L.B., Lane, K.E. (2001)
School Law: A California perspective. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.
United Teachers Los Angeles. (2004). About Us. Retrieved on August 14, 2004
from
http://www.utla.net/index.cfm?zone=7unionactive/view_j>age.cfrn&page=
AboutUS .
United Teachers Los Angeles. (2001). 2002-2003 Agreement Los Angeles Unified
School District and United Teachers Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA.
Voke, H. (2002). What do we know about sanctions and rewards? ASCD Info
Brief (31). Retrieved on July 14, 2004 from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/infobrief/issue 31 .html.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Von Seeker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science
excellence and equity. Journal o f Educational Research, 95, 151-160.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory o f social and economic organizations. (T. Parsons,
trans.). New York: Free Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 10, Retrieved on August 5, 2004 from
http ://epaa. asu. edu/ epaa/v 1 On 12/.
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 Corporation.
Wolf, R. (1973). How teachers feel toward evaluation. In E. House (Ed.), School
evaluation: The politics and processes (pp. 156-168). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
APPENDIX A:
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 o f years as a teacher: (Please circle one) 0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. lly r s . +
2) Number o f years at this location: (Please circle one) 0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. lly r s . +
Policy: Teachers ’ knowledge and perceptions o f official documents regarding the teacher evaluation
process.
3) I am aware o f 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 o f 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
______SD D A SA
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) M y administrator frequently observes my classroom for the purpose o f evaluation.
0 1 2 3
8) M y administrator and I often discuss the instructional strategies I use in my classroom
0 1 2 3
9) I view my administrator’s implementation o f the teacher evaluation policies as an
integral part o f m y professional growth.
0 1 2 3
10) When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks for things which we
agreed upon at a pre-conference.
0 1 2 3
11)1 receive timely feedback following my observations.
0 1 2 3
12) The teacher evaluation feedback assists me improving m y teacher practice.
0 1 2 3
13) I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate my instructional practice.
0 1 2 3
14) There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g. PAR, portfolio, etc.) available at
my school.
0 1 2 3
15) I have participated in an alternative evaluation process before.
0 1 2 3
16) I believe that m y participation in the teacher evaluation process at this
school has led to my professional growth.
0 1 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 m y classroom.
0 1 2 3
18) Other instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors, etc.)
frequently observe my classroom.
0 1 2 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
______SD D A SA
19) I receive meaningful feedback regarding my teaching following an observation.
0 1 2 3
20) I have discussions with administrators regarding my teaching.
0 1 2 3
21) I have discussions with instructional support staff (not including site administrators)
regarding m y teaching.
0 1 2 3
22) I see the administration’s supervision o f instruction as non-evaluative and separate
from formal evaluation processes.
0 1 2 3
23) I am aware o f the specific things that administrators look for when visiting my
classroom.
0 1 2 3
24) I am confident in m y administration’s ability to monitor my instructional practice.
0 1 2 3
25) I believe that my administration’s supervision o f instruction improves my instructional
practice.
0 1 2 3
26) I believe that other instructional support sta ffs supervision o f instruction improves
my instructional practice.
0 1 2 3
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 1 2 3
28) Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on instructional matters on a regular basis.
0 1 2 3
29) I collaborate with others on instructional matters on a regular basis.
0 1 2 3
30) I am aware o f an official professional development plan that has been prepared to
share with the district and school community at large.
0 1 2 3
31)1 have a clear understanding o f the professional development goals for m y school.
0 1 2 3
32) Teachers have an active role in developing professional development goals and
objectives.
0 1 2 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
SD D A SA
School Culture: Teacher’ s perception o f “the way we do things around here. ”
33) I am comfortable going to m y school administrators for support.
0 1 2 3
34) I am aware o f the goals and objectives o f this school.
0 1 2 3
35) I believe in the goals and objectives o f this school.
0 1 2 3
36) The values o f this school are consistent with my own values.
0 1 2 3
37) The goals and objectives o f this school have contributed to our school’s improvement.
0 1 2 3
38) I am satisfied with the professional competence and teaching ability o f my teaching
colleagues.
0 1 2 3
39) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership ability o f the
administration.
0 1 2 3
40) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership ability o f the
instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors, etc.)
0 1 2 3
41) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership ability o f teachers in
leadership roles at this school.
0 1 2 3
42) Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and instruction impact our school’s ability
to improve.
0 1 2 3
43) Teachers have an active role in making decisions for the school.
0 1 2 3
44) Teachers have initiated efforts towards school improvement.
0 1 2 3
45) The majority o f school improvement efforts at this school have been initiated by the
district and/or site administration.
0 1 2 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
______SD D A SA
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’s belief that he/she can make a difference in student learning.
46) I believe that all students can learn.
0 1 2 3
47) When I really try, I can get through to most students.
0 1 2 3
48) If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew the
necessary steps in teaching that concept.
0 1 2 3
49) When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it
to his/her level.
0 1 2 3
50) When the grades/proficiency levels o f my students improve, it is usually because I used my
effective teaching approaches.
0 1 2 3
51)1 believe that all students can achieve at high levels.
0 1 2 3
52) The influence o f a student’s home environment can be overcome by good teaching.
0 1 2 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
APPENDIX B:
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Policy: Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions o f official documents regarding the teacher
evaluation process.______ ______________ _______________________________________
Question
As
Evidenced
Dominant
Frame
Rationale
1. How would you
describe your
district’s policy
on teacher
evaluation?
2. How does the
teacher
evaluation
process affect
your practice in
the classroom?
3. What
modifications
would you
recommend for
the teacher
evaluation policy
that would
improve your
practice?
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.
Question
A s
Evidenced
Dominant
Frame
Rationale
4. Describe your
experiences with
the evaluation
process.
5. What are the
strengths and
weaknesses of
the evaluation
process at this
school?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
6. What elements
of the evaluation
process are
effective in
improving
teacher
practice?
Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participate in the
supervision process through observations, data collections, feedback, goal setting, and
improvement strategies.
Question
A s
Evidenced
Dominant
Frame
Rationale
7. Outside of the
evaluation
process, what
types of
interactions
do/have you
engaged in with
administration,
colleagues and
other educators
regarding
instruction?
8. Outside the
evaluation
process, what
types of
instructional
feedback are you
given?
School Efforts: Teacher’ s perception o f school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may lead to school improvement.
Question
A s
Evidenced
Dominant
Frame
Rationale
9. Why is this school
successful?
10. What school wide
programs and/or
strategies have
been implemented
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
to improve 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.
14. How are
individual teacher
professional
development goals
and objectives
linked to the
evaluation
process?
15. Who decides what
and how
professional
development is
offered?
School Culture: Teacher’ s perceptions o f “the way we do things around here.”
Question
As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
16. How are school
site decisions
made?
17. Where does the
leadership come
from at the
school site?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
18. How is conflict
resolved 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?
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’ s belief that he/she can make a difference in student learning.
Question
A s 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
APPENDIX C:
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW
School Efforts: Teacher’ s perception o f school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may lead to school improvement
Question
A s
Evidenced
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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
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?
School Culture: Teacher’ s perceptions o f “the way we do things around here. ”
Question
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
informatio
n
communica
ted at the
school site?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12. Whom do
you view as
school
leaders?
13. What is
celebrated
here?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
APPENDIX D:
SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
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
Development Plan
Accreditation/Program
Quality Review
Demographic Data
No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Legislation
Meeting Minutes
Board Policy (ies)
District
Memorandum/ Policy
Bulletins
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
APPENDIX E:
DOCUMENT REVIEW ANALYSIS
Title of
Document
Date of Review
Type of
Document
Author/Decision-
Maker
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.
146
APPENDIX F:
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
strategies?
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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

Beating the odds: Does the formal teacher evaluation process make the difference in teacher performance?

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

A case study of the California teacher evaluation system and its impact upon teacher practice in an alternative education high -performing urban high school

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high performing urban elementary school

PDF

Factors of a successful transition into a new superintendency

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

PDF

Curriculum policy and educational practices: A study of primary classroom music education in Kern County, California

PDF

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

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

PDF

Addressing social promotion and retention issues: A look at one middle school in the process of reform

PDF

An elementary school's perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher evaluation to enhance teacher practice

PDF

Improving student achievement: An urban success story

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

An investigation of early literacy achievement with an emphasis on urban public schools

PDF

Elementary school teachers' perceptions of professional development needs

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

Examining a successful urban elementary school: Putting the pieces together

Asset Metadata

Creator Mendoza, Elsa Hilda (author)

Core Title California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice in a high -performing urban school

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,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Kincaid, James R. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-449506

Unique identifier UC11340340

Identifier 3196858.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-449506 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3196858.pdf

Dmrecord 449506

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mendoza, Elsa Hilda

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