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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER EVALUATION
TO ENHANCE TEACHER PRACTICE
by
Mary Elizabeth La Masa
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 Mary Elizabeth La Masa
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3180461
Copyright 2005 by
La Masa, Mary Elizabeth
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180461
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my best friends: my parents, Karl and Maria La
Masa. They have imbedded in me a strong work ethic, dedication to the teaching
profession, and an intrinsic drive to never give up. Without their support and love,
I never would have strived to become better than I was the day before.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my sincere appreciation to the people who have assisted me in the
completion of this study.
Without the immense knowledge about teaching and student learning at the
site and state levels that was shared by my “sister,” Gina Nolte, I would have found
myself, more often than not, losing aim.
Dr. Maria Gandera and Alice Petrossian motivated me to obtain a doctorate
in education. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Maria Gandera and Dr. Sue
Wheeler-Ayres, who went above and beyond the call of duty in editing and im
proving the study.
I deeply appreciate my dissertation colleagues, Stephanie Phillips and Vicki
Hemadez, whose combined efforts led not only me but each of us to discover and
achieve success.
Special thanks go to Dr. Michael Escalante and friends in the “Bedrock”
Unified School District, who supported me in this endeavor. I am honored to work
with such dedicated individuals, who strive to improve the education profession.
Thanks to Dr. Thomas C. Halvorsen and Dr. Dennis C. Hocevar, my com
mittee members, for their valuable input and thought-provoking insights.
My chair, Dr. Stuart E. Gothold, encouraged me to make this dissertation a
rich story. He has continually inspired me to go beyond the surface, to dig deep,
and to find significant meaning in educational leadership.
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK...........................................................................................1
Background......................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 5
Exploratory Questions........................................................................ 6
Significance of the Problem................................................................ 6
Methodology....................................................................................... 6
Assumptions........................................................................................ 7
Limitations of the Study..................................................................... 8
Delimitations of the Study.................................................................. 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................ 8
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...........................................................12
The Evolving Context of Teacher Evaluation...................................13
Governance and Accountability.........................................................15
Federal........................................................................................15
State............................................................................................16
Collective Bargaining................................................................ 23
District....................................................................................... 25
Teacher Evaluation........................................................................... 26
Clinical Supervision.................................................................. 28
Portfolio..................................................................................... 29
Current Efforts to Improve Teacher Practice.....................................32
Factors That Influence Teacher Practice.......................................... 33
Professional Development......................................................... 34
Collaboration............................................................................. 36
Mentoring.................................................................................. 37
School Culture and Teacher Performance........................................ 38
Supervision................................................................................ 39
School Culture........................................................................... 39
Teacher Efficacy........................................................................ 40
Conclusions....................................................................................... 41
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................. 44
The Problem...................................................................................... 44
The Research Questions.................................................................... 46
Sample and Population..................................................................... 46
Selected District................................................................................ 47
Selected School................................................................................. 48
Site Participants......................................................................... 49
Teacher Credential Status.......................................................... 49
District Administrative Support................................................. 51
Design............................................................................................... 51
Frameworks for the Research Questions.......................................... 53
Instrument Development................................................................... 54
Data Collection................................................................................. 56
Data Collection via Survey........................................................ 56
Data Collection via Interviews.................................................. 58
Data Collection via Observation................................................ 58
Data Analysis.................................................................................... 59
4. FINDINGS............................................................................................... 61
Research Question 1 ......................................................................... 63
State Legislation........................................................................ 63
Board Policy and Collective Bargaining....................................66
Research Question 2 ......................................................................... 70
District Policy Implemented at the Site Level............................71
Accountability at the School Site.............................................. 74
Research Question 3 ......................................................................... 79
Nature of School Site Leadership.............................................. 79
What Influences Shaped the Site’s Teacher Evaluation
Practice............................................................................... 86
Professional Development......................................................... 86
Collaboration............................................................................. 88
Mentoring.................................................................................. 90
Supervision................................................................................ 90
School Culture........................................................................... 92
Teacher Efficacy........................................................................ 95
Research Question 4 ......................................................................... 97
Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of the Teacher
Evaluation Process............................................................. 98
Evidence of Changes in Teacher Practice Emanating
From the Evaluation Process.............................................101
School Efforts That Improve Teacher Practice........................103
Cost Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation................................104
Consequences for “Weak” and “Strong” Teachers..................105
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........109
Purpose of the Study........................................................................110
Summary of Findings and Implications...........................................110
Conclusions......................................................................................118
Recommendations for Practice........................................................119
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................123
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 125
APPENDICES......................................................................................................132
A. TEACHER SURVEY...........................................................................133
B. INTERVIEW GUIDE: ADMINISTRATORS..................................... 138
C. INTERVIEW GUIDE: TEACHERS...................................................141
D. DOCUMENT REVIEW TEMPLATE..................................................146
E. OBSERVATION TEMPLATE.............................................................149
F. INFORMED CONSENT FORM..........................................................151
v i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Academic Performance Index (API) Ranking for the Target School.......... 49
2. Characteristics of the Boulder Elementary School and Bedrock
Unified School District.......................................................................... 50
3. Characteristics of the Teaching Staff at Boulder Elementary School..........50
4. Profile of the Sample and the Instruments Completed by Members
of the Sample......................................................................................... 52
5. Research Tools and Items Associated With Specific Research
Questions................................................................................................ 57
6. Summary of Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 1 ................. 70
7. Summary of Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 2 ................73
8. Summary of Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 3 ............82
9. Summary of Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 4 .............. 100
v ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Rubric of effectiveness................................................................................ 60
2. Timeline for the evaluation process............................................................ 65
3. District timeline...........................................................................................71
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe the per
ceptions and impact of the district-mandated teacher evaluation process and other
site factors that impact teacher practice. Further, the purpose of the study was to
describe how one elementary school utilized the teacher evaluation process to
improve teacher practices.
This case study describes one well-performing urban K-6 elementary
school. The key design elements, the extent to which the evaluation process has
been implemented, and the effectiveness of the design to improve teacher practice
were of major importance of this study. Teacher and administrator data related to
teacher evaluation and effective instructional practices were collected through
questionnaires, interviews, observations, and document review. All written docu
mentation pertaining to evaluation was analyzed, including board polices and pro
cedures, collective bargaining agreements, and evaluation tools. Surveys from 36
teachers were analyzed. A site administrator, two district administrators, and 8
teachers participated in one-on-one or small group interviews.
The analysis of the data revealed that the evaluation process was being fully
implemented. Further indications were that, with increased collaboration, admin
istrative informal observations, and formative assessment training for administra
tors and teachers, the evaluation process would become more productive in
improving teacher practice. The results of this study provide insights for districts
that aspire to enhance teacher practice through the teacher evaluation process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In 1971 the Stull Act was enacted to support and establish a uniform
assessment and evaluation process for certificated teachers throughout the state of
California (former Education Code §§ 13485-13490). Education Code §§44660-
44665, the mandated law, set the guidelines by which districts developed, adopted,
and implemented procedures to evaluate certificated teachers. The code described
that the foundational purpose of evaluation was to assess and evaluate the effec
tiveness of an educator as it relates to job-related responsibilities. Ultimately, the
teacher’s responsibilities included student progress, instructional techniques and
strategies, adherence to state and district curriculum, and maintenance of an effec
tive learning environment for student achievement (Education Code §44662;
GUSD Administrative Regulation; Savanna School District, 1993). The formal
summative evaluation, from a strictly legal aspect, also provided justification (due
process) for actions taken with regard to adverse personnel issues (Dunklee &
Shoop, 2002). The provisions of the Education Code allowed districts to work with
certificated representation, unions, and governing board to develop district-wide
uniform evaluation process and standards.
As the level of accountability for student achievement increased with Cali
fornia’s Academic Performance Index (API), and the federal Academic Yearly
Progress (AYP), and No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB,
2002), districts made modifications in the teacher evaluation process. These
changes addressed the enhancement of professional development, contributed to the
quality of teaching, and ensured teacher accountability (C. Danielson, 2001; C.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Throughout the past decade many districts have sig
nificantly changed the conception of the teacher evaluation process. Literature
suggests that many administrators and teachers continue to believe that the evalua
tion process is a meaningless exercise (Danielson) and that formal and informal
classroom visits by the administrative staff are simply not substantial enough to
support the enhancement of instruction (Diamond & Handi, 2002). The literature
also suggests that the teacher evaluation process has extensive potential for im
proving teacher performance (Drake & McBride, 2000; Iwanicki, 2001). Educators
wanted the teacher evaluation process to be effective in enhancing teaching prac
tices. The appropriateness of teacher evaluation came into question as it related to
the Educational Code’s foundational goals, legal limitations and mandates, and
effectiveness on known research-based teacher practices that positively impacted
student achievement. It was not known whether the mandated evaluation process
was a reliable tool that accurately reflected, promoted, and improved teacher prac
tice. The question was raised: If not, what factors did so?
Background
During the past decade education reform has focused on student and teach
ing standards, research-based teaching practices to enhance student learning, prac
tices that enhance professional growth, and supervision strategies that enhance
teacher effectiveness, leading to greater student achievement. Accountability re
quirements, in the form of federal and state legislation, came from public pressure
on public schools to improve student achievement. The outcome of these changes
encouraged districts to modify the process of teacher evaluation since the inception
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the Stull Bill in 1971. Therefore, alternative methods for evaluating teachers
were established.
Under the current law, local districts have flexibility in developing policies
and procedures under the guidance of California Education Code, boards of educa
tion, and collective bargaining agreements. While some changes took place at the
district level, the collective bargaining negotiations relating to teacher evaluation
may have limited and restricted districts in supporting the enhancement of teacher
practice and making decisions about a teacher’s effectiveness on student achieve
ment.
As far back as the 18th century, the highly directed supervision process in
which teachers were evaluated created the role of the site administrator as an “in
spector” to determine whether instructional standards were being achieved
(Acheson & Gall, 2003). The goal set forth by the legislation and policy makers of
teacher evaluation was quality assurance to ensure competent teachers in all class
rooms (C. Danielson, 2001). Traditionally, this form of clinical supervision that
was used to evaluate teacher performance lacked the capacity to support teachers in
their professional development. Since evaluation was mandated, it tended to arise
from a need of the administrator; however, it was the teachers who endured and
resisted the process due to the possibility of a negative outcome (Acheson & Gall).
The form of supervision as “inspection” was noted as being a mechanistic concep
tion and outdated (Sullivan, 2000).
Districts are currently taking a closer look at the evaluation process that
entails both formal and informal visitations by the principal focusing on the state
content standards for students and California Standards for the Teaching Profession
for the purpose of evaluation and to ensure that quality teaching takes place in all
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classrooms. Concern arose from both administrators and teachers in that an obser
vation depicted a snapshot of a teacher’s performance and was not an effective tool
for evaluation or professional development (Acheson & Gall, 200e; Diamond &
Handi, 2002).
Districts such as the Bedrock1 Unified School District in California, noted,
“The supervision of instruction is the most important responsibility of the Princi
pal” (BUSD, 2002, AR 6130.1). Supervision of instruction included all areas of
teacher responsibilities that were to be evaluated, which were noted in Education
Code §44662, established responsibility for the principal to promote a positive
school climate, and saw that the district’s curricular programs and practices were
facilitated properly. Therefore, supervision of instruction was the overarching
arena of which evaluation was a subset.
As research-based strategies arose to improve teaching, many districts were
redesigning the process for evaluating teachers. Due to the flexibility that local
districts were allowed by law, many were employing alternative forms of evalua
tion that had proven to be successful in enhancing teacher practice. These strate
gies involved various processes found in effective supervisory practices and
professional development. Alternative approaches to the supervisory procedure of
evaluation included portfolio and peer collaborative methods to fulfill the mandated
evaluation process. Administrators and teachers alike continued to be responsible
for cultural change at the school that supported student achievement. As districts
strove for the development and implementation of policies and practices to enhance
For purposes of anonymity, the names of the school and the school district
that were the subject of the present case study are fictitious and are referred to
hereafter as Boulder School and Bedrock Unified School District.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teaching and student learning, reform in the evaluation process, the selection of
method, tools, and practices was critical to the effectiveness of evaluation as a
process for enhancing student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The State’s Report Card, API, No Child Left Behind, and AYP were legis
lative actions that rendered administrators and teachers accountable for student
achievement. To ensure that teachers were employing effective practices, school
districts were mandated by the Education Code to evaluate all certificated teachers.
This study was designed to inquire into the perceptions of administrators
and teachers regarding factors that influence teaching practices. The first purpose
was to determine the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evalua
tion. The second purpose was to determine how the school carried out the teacher
evaluation process. The third purpose was to determine what principals and teach
ers viewed as the factors that have shaped school-level efforts. The fourth purpose
was to determine the perceptions of administrators and teachers regarding the ef
fectiveness of the evaluation process at the school site.
This case study delved deeply into an elementary school site (K-6) in the
Bedrock Unified School District (BUSD). The study obtained data and analyzed
the data qualitatively to determine whether the teacher evaluation process was an
effective tool, along with determining alternative strategies and processes within
the school site that were more effective in improving teaching and that could be
used within the teacher evaluation process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Exploratory Questions
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evalua
tion?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school-level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
Significance of the Problem
Attitudes and beliefs had a great influence on the effectiveness of the
evaluation process and procedures (Painter, 2000). Education Code § 44660-44665
mandated that district impose a teacher evaluation process on teachers and admin
istrators at school sites. A great deal of time and resources were expended to
ensure that this process took place. If teachers and administrators perceived the
teacher evaluation process as being ineffective, then essential changes in the laws
had to be made to address the goal of evaluation, enhance professional develop
ment, and improve teacher efficacy. It was essential that the laws worked to incor
porate effective practices and procedures presently outside of the evaluation
process, which are founded in research and perceived by teachers and administra
tors as enhancing teacher practice, into the process of teacher evaluation.
Methodology
The focus of this case study was to study the teacher evaluation process and
effective processes and school practices that contribute to enhancing teacher prac
tice. Qualitative methods (i.e., analysis of transcribed interviews, observations, and
documents) were generally employed to inquire into the effectiveness of the
evaluation process and practices. Initially, quantitative data, collected via the
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teacher survey, were collected to provide a blueprint to support the in-depth study
of the practices and procedures within the realm of supervision that supported the
enhancement of teacher practice.
Due to the perceived limitations of quantitative research, case studies
provide a distinct approach to a more in-depth scientific inquiry into a specific case
or instance of a phenomenon (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The complement of the
quantitative method and qualitative method allowed the researcher to gain insights
into the focus area in its natural context to identify and interpret the emerging
themes (constructs) and factors. Through making conceptual and theoretic
meaning of the participants’ viewpoint (emic perspective), the researchers’ view
point (etic perspective) was utilized to report and explain the case study findings in
a clear and concise manner (Gall et al.). The intent of this case study was to evalu
ate the effectiveness of the evaluation process and to gain a clear understanding of
processes and practices to influence practices and policies to direct further re
search.
Assumptions
1. The participants responded honestly and candidly to the best of their
ability.
2. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a
degree of applicability and generalizability of all elementary schools (K-6) within a
given district.
3. The data were accurately recorded and analyzed.
4. The measures utilized in the study were reliable and valid indicators of
the constructs studied.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Limitations of the Study
It is acknowledged that the experiences and knowledge of the participants
cannot ensure that the respondents fully understood the meaning of the survey
question or that all respondents understood the questions in the same way. Surveys
were limited to their capacity to obtain in depth- responses.
Delimitations of the Study
1. This study was delimited to the administrators, certificated teachers, and
support staff at a single school site, and those district administrators responsible for
training and documentation who voluntarily agreed to be a part of the study. Re
spondents and participants were from a nonrandomly selected single school site (K-
6) and local educational support personnel who were representative of a single
school district.
2. The study focused on the teacher and administrator perceptions of the
teacher evaluation process and other related factors, and their impact on teacher
practice.
3. Data collection was confined to a teacher survey, teacher and adminis
trator interviews, observations, and document review.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined to prevent misinterpretation, assist the
reader in understanding unfamiliar and special usage of specific terms that have
diverse meanings, names of programs, and pertinent legislation.
Academic Performance Index (API): The cornerstone of California’s Public
Schools Accountability Act of 1999; measures the academic performance and
growth of schools on a variety of academic measures.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Accountability: This term implies that schools are answerable to the public
and policy makers for student achievement. Accountability in schools is data
driven and based on the belief that data provide information that supports im
provement in teaching and student learning.
Administrator. This term refers to the individual responsible for day-to-day
operations and leadership at the district or school site. This could include princi
pals, assistant principals, program administrators, districts directors, coordinators,
assistant superintendents, and superintendent.
California Content Standards'. Standards adopted for students K-12 by the
California State Board of Education for English, language arts, mathematics, his
tory, social science, physical education, and visual and performing arts.
California Distinguished School: Recognition bestowed on a school that
achieves and sustains a high level of achievement on mandated tests. Schools are
invited to participate by submitting an application. If chosen to receive recogni
tion, the site and district personnel attend a ceremony and receive a banner.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): Standards for
professional teaching practice adopted by the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing and the California Department of Education in 1997 that provide a
common language and a vision of the scope and complexity of teaching.
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL):
Standards for professional administrative practice adopted by the California Com
mission on Teacher Credentialing.
Certificated personnel: Personnel within school districts who possess a
California Teaching Credential, a teaching license.
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Evaluation: A process mandated by state law in which only personnel
holding an administrative credential are authorized to evaluate teacher performance
by a board of education. The purpose of evaluation is broad and comprehensive.
The evaluation process evaluates teaching competencies that, after being devel
oped, negotiated, and adopted, are made public on forms used in the process. Cri
teria are determined by the district, which places a “value” on a teacher’s
performance. The result of the evaluation is a document written on district-
developed forms of which a copy is provided to the teacher, placed in the district
personnel file, and retained by the site principal.
Formative evaluation: A tool used to improve instruction by providing the
teacher with data and feedback specific to teaching and student learning.
Immediate Intervention For Underperforming Schools Program (II, USP):
A plan to provide intervention assistance for schools identified as underperforming,
which includes those schools who students were in the lowest fifth decile statewide
for 2 consecutive years (California Department of Education [CDE], 2000).
No Child Left Behind Act o f2001 (NCLB): A federal law that reauthorized
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed in 2001, which
required 100% of students to be deemed grade-level proficient in English and
mathematics by 2013 (NCLB, 2002).
Peer Assistance and Review (PAR): A program established in which exem
plary teachers provide support and assistance to beginning teachers and those per
manent teachers who are placed on an improvement plan, or those who volunteer to
participate.
Policy: A guiding principle established to direct acceptable procedures of
an organization.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Professional development: A system that helps teachers to improve teach
ing strategies and skills on an ongoing basis.
Public Schools Accountability Act o f1999 (PSAA): A law that requires all
schools to demonstrate and publish information to the public that indicates the
quality and progress of the school’s programs.
Stakeholder. Person affected by or interested in a program or organization
(Gall et al., 2003).
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)'. The mandated California
norm and standardized testing and data report program.
Summative evaluation: A tool used to provide teachers with a value judg
ment as to the teacher’s job performance; used to make personnel decisions.
Supervision: Not mandated by law; department chairs, peers, mentors, or
colleagues may be delegated to facilitate instructional improvement. The purpose
of supervision focuses primarily on the improvement of instruction. Teachers are
asked to identify what a supervisor and teacher looks for as criteria for excellence
to support the enhancement of student learning. Data are collected and given to the
teacher as feedback. The direction and oversight of school operations are reviewed
(Sullivan, 2000).
Teacher practice: The methods and means by which a classroom teacher
delivers instruction.
Title T . Title I of ESEA was established in 1965 to provide additional edu
cational services to the nation’s poorest and lowest-achieving students. The Im
proving America’s Schools Act was a reauthorization bill that, among other things,
rewrote the ESEA.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Since the passage of the Stull Bill in 1971, the evaluation of teachers has
become a mandated task for districts and site administrators. The intent of the law
was to “establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the perform
ance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state” (Education
Code § 44660-44665). Districts throughout California continued to work toward
creating an evaluation process that was effective in meeting the law. Within the
past 3 decades, educational policy, practices, and research have evolved to support
the enhancement of teaching and student learning. What was learned was that
teacher quality was essential in performing the complex task of teaching that suc
cessfully supports student learning (Darling-Hammond, 1999) and that teacher su
pervision was essential for enhancing teacher practice and student learning
(Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000).
The purpose of this literature review was to look at legislation and the
founding research regarding rationale for implementation of policies and practices
related to improving teacher practice and evaluation. Through a review of litera
ture, this chapter develops historical and legislative understanding of teacher
evaluation necessary for interpreting administrator and teacher perceptions as they
relate to the site-level evaluation process. In addition, literature on the contributing
factors that developed effective teacher practice was reviewed for its influence on
the development of the survey instrument, interview questions, and interpretation
of the findings.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Evolving Context of Teacher Evaluation
The process of teacher evaluation in the nation’s schools evolved from a
process of inspection to one of instructional supervision. The origins of supervi
sory practice began during the colonial days, when local, untrained, lay trustees
were responsible for inspecting, examining, and watching teachers to ensure main
tenance of existing standards of instruction. The late 19th century, at the time of
Horace Mann, brought about changes in the school system. At that time, superin
tendents, who were trained practitioners, relied on supervisory methods that
utilized inspection based on intuition rather than on technical and scientific
knowledge. The early 20th century was a time in which new positions of admin
istration, including the principal and vice principal, were developed to supervise
and evaluate what went on day to day in the classroom (Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000).
At the time of Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s Principals o f Scientific Manage
ment, Max Weber’s bureaucracy design, and Franklin Bobbit’s work on scientific
and professional supervisory methods (approximately 1910 to 1913), many super
visors believed that, for a school to be effective, it was necessary to eliminate per
sonal elements and instead use methods of scientific administration and
supervision. This was the beginning of a system for rating teachers (Sullivan &
Glanzer, 2000; Wiles & Bondi, 1996). There was backlash to this new form of
bureaucratic supervision. In the 1920s, a more democratic approach emerged. This
method blended some aspects of the scientific methods with a more democratic
form of supervision that included teachers participating in problem-solving activi
ties to improve instruction (Sullivan & Glanzer).
Between the 1930s and 1950s the rating system of the past was no longer
viable. The scientific method emerged, wherein an objective was set, classroom
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
observation occurred, and measurement instruments, along with the recording of
verbatim accounts of the directed lessons, were used to scientifically analyze the
effectiveness of the instructional program (Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000).
During the 1960s, changes in supervision were geared toward how admin
istrators looked at leadership. The expansion of the democratic methods led to a
change in supervisory practices, moving from supervision by inspection to supervi
sion as leadership, with the goal to create instructional change. The 1970s brought
a quandary for many administrators regarding changes in responsibilities of leader
ship. At that time, educators were seeking alternative methods to traditional prac
tices. Clinical supervision was implemented on the premise that, to improve
instruction and student achievement, a prescribed, formal collaborative process
between the teacher and supervisor was needed (Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000).
Collaboration became part of the educational process. Continuing changes
came about regarding supervision during the 1990s. Evident trends during this
time were as follows: supervisors as change agents, teacher empowerment, peer
supervision, professionally trained supervisors, cognitive coaching, and instruc
tional leadership in place of the administrator as supervisor (Sullivan & Glanzer,
2000). Although the field of supervision has worked to resolve the conflict be
tween school improvement and evaluation, according to Sullivan and Glanzer, the
changes did not necessarily reflect the changes in teacher practice. Literature con
tinued to show that the practice of supervision, as evaluation, did not support
teacher practice.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Governance and Accountability
Public view specific to teaching and student learning has significantly
changed over time. Society began to understand that the quality of teachers was a
major component for ensuring that all students were academically successful. As
constituents’ views of schools manifested, so did the laws that governed and set
accountability requirements. School districts and school sites were expected to
justify and document evidence in regards to the effectiveness of their programs to
both lawmakers and the general public (Wade, 2001). In the past, it was only the
state’s responsibility to provide an appropriate education for the children living in
the state; in 2001, the federal government set strict governance and accountability
laws that affect all schools. Federal, state, and local districts, as well as collective
bargaining, affect administrators and teachers in meeting the high standards and
expectations of legislative actions that attempt to positively affect teacher practice.
Federal
Throughout the years, federal and state laws have increased accountability
of public schools. “On January 8, 2002 Public Law 107-110 passed by the 107th
Congress was enacted to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility,
and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002). NCLB of 2001 requires
that all students perform at or above proficient level on state standards by the year
2014. This law also requires that all subgroups participating in Title I (ESEA, re
authorized as NCLB) programs meet and exceed the proficient level. If schools fall
short for 2 consecutive years, they are penalized (Parmet, 2004). Due to the monies
provided by Title I, accountability plays a significant role in NCLB (Berry, Hoke,
& Hisch, 2004).
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NCLB also has provisions that require all teachers to be “highly qualified.”
Title II of NCLB focuses on the preparation, training, and recruitment of highly
qualified teachers (NCLB, 2002; Stedman, 2003). According to NCLB, the ration
ale for hiring “highly qualified” teachers is that, through strategies of improving
teacher quality within the classroom, student achievement will increase. Research
studies have indicated that teacher quality significantly affects student achieve
ment; however, there is limited agreement among educational reformers as to what
qualifies as “teaching quality” and what should be done to ensure that all students
have access to highly qualified teachers (Berry et al., 2004). Sanctions are placed
against schools and districts that fail to meet progress toward the goals, including
failure to develop an improvement plan (Stedman, 2003).
State
Since the creation of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
the state government has been governing and setting standards for teacher prepara
tion programs, licensing, and ensuring that teachers are well qualified to educate
the diverse population of students. The Ryan Act of 1970 was the first to create the
autonomous agency California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, under the
executive branch of the California state government. The Commission is responsi
ble for ensuring that those who educate children are prepared academically and
professionally. The agency designs, develops, and implements the standards that
govern educator preparation, licensing, and credentialing of teachers; enforces pro
fessional practices; and disciplines credential holders working in California schools
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2001).
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California teacher evaluation policy law, established in 1971 by the passage
of the Stull Act (Education Code § 44660-44665) continues to prescribe an evalua
tion system based on student objectives. Education Code § 44660 stated, “It is the
intent of the Legislature that governing boards establish a uniform system of
evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within
each school district of the state.” In the development and adoption of evaluation
guidelines and procedures, teacher and district representation have agreed on ob
jective standards. These standards may include those from the National Board of
Professional Standards or the CSTP. The standards for expected student achieve
ment on State Content Standards are also taken into account. Education Code §
44662 (1) states that, if applicable and reasonable, criterion-referenced assessments
relating to student progress, instructional techniques, adherence to curricular objec
tives, and maintenance of an appropriate learning environment may be used as cri
teria for teacher evaluation. However, it was made clear within the Educational
Code that standardized norm-referenced tests were not to be used in the evaluation
process.
Education Code § 44663 set forth the timeline for providing teachers with a
written copy of the evaluation, teachers’ rights to respond to the evaluation, and the
evaluation cycle. The evaluation sections within the Education Code set parame
ters for addressing unsatisfactory teaching performance. The evaluator is responsi
ble to include specific recommendations for improvement for those who were
evaluated as unsatisfactory and may include a recommendation to participate in
programs designed to support employees. Recommendations to improve teacher
performance may include participation in PAR (Education Code § 44500). To
support future evaluations of those employees found unsatisfactory, the results of
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the PAR program “shall be made available” to administrators to assess and evaluate
a teacher’s performance (Education Code § 44664).
Pursuant to Education Code § 44664, teachers who receive an unsatisfac
tory rating in the areas of instruction and teaching methods are required to partici
pate in the PAR program, if the PAR program exists within the district (California
School Boards Association [CSBA], 1999). In 1998 the Higher Education
Amendment, Title II, Sec. 202(d)(5) allowed states to use federal funds to provide
ineffective educators with professional development opportunities and support in
the removal of those deemed incompetent (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Passed in 1999,
AB1X, the Villaraigosa Bill, established the California PAR program, which placed
a “sunset” limitation on the California Mentor Teacher Program, created in July of
2001 to support new teachers. This program allowed for expert teachers to mentor
and support those who were nontenured or tenured teachers who were struggling to
provide high-quality instruction, by providing intensive assistance as an interven
tion and useful formative assessment of the teacher’s performance (Weiss &
Weiss).
AB1X, currently under Educational Code § 44500-44508, allows the gov
erning board of a school district and certificated representation to implement a PAR
program to assist all permanent teachers and probationary teachers in districts with
an average daily attendance of more than 250 students. This program is to be vol
untary or to be a result of referral based on a poor rating on the biennial evaluation
in the areas of teaching methods or instruction. The intent of the law is to establish
a mechanism by which mentor teachers use formative assessment to support strug
gling teachers in development of subject matter or teaching strategies. Added to
this law was a change in Education Code § 44664 that allowed for annual
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluations to take place until the teacher receives a satisfactory evaluation or is
released from the district.
Teacher peer review has received increased recognition as an alternate
method for conducting formal evaluations of a teacher’s performance and making
recommendations for assistance or dismissal. Peer review had its foundation in the
legislated PAR program, which was set up as a way to support ineffective teachers
who had received a negative evaluation. At present, peer review does not super
cede the authority of a site administrator regarding final personnel decisions, nor
have there been any conclusive findings regarding the effect of this program in
California on teacher practice. Although a peer review program was rejected by the
California legislature in 1997, many teacher groups were in favor of an evaluation
process in which mentor teachers would evaluate and support peers and place ac
countability in the hands of educators (Escamilla, Clarke, & Linn, 2000).
The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act was
passed in California in 1988. Public schools throughout California are mandated to
participate in the STAR program, which measures achievement based on student
comparisons and determines the level of an individual student’s comprehension and
skills required by the California state standards. Schools are required by federal
law to meet the AYP, which is determined by student scores on the California
Standards Tests (CST), the API, percentages of students taking standardized tests,
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), and high school graduation rates.
In subsequent years, schools are required to show an increase in the standards of
achievement until 2014, when all students will be required to meet the NCLB
achievement level.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Accountability in schools is data driven and based on the belief that data
provide information that supports improvement in teaching and student learning.
In light of strict accountability, both federal and state, schools and teachers can no
longer rely strictly on instinct, experience, and past practice but must be able to
analyze data and use research-based practices to make decisions to enhance stu
dents’ learning (Wade, 2001). The role of the administrator has changed signifi
cantly over the years, as research has uncovered effective practices that improve
teaching practices and student learning. Principals have become more responsible
for providing an effective learning program for students. Supervision includes a
higher level of administrative involvement in the process of teaching and learning,
professional development, and data-based decision making (Lashway, 2002). Ad
ministrators are responsible to collect, analyze, disseminate, and train teachers to
interpret the data to identify weaknesses in order to enhance student achievement
(Wade).
The practice of supervision also requires administrators to be facilitators of
collaborative decision making. Education Code § 44666-44669 requires districts
and school sites to foster professional collaboration. The intent of this law is to
provide professionals with responsibility and accountability. However, if educators
become more involved in decision making, it is essential that there be a higher
quality of teachers in the educational profession.
The Bergeson Act, SB 148, led to significant reform movements, beginning
in 1992, that changed how teachers were to be prepared for the classroom. Out of
SB 148, the California New Teacher Project (CNTP), 1988-1992, a research and
development program, described negative issues that impacted student achieve
ment. This included lack of teacher retention, high turnover of minority teachers,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increase in size and diversity of student population, and increasing complexities of
teaching and learning (Olebe, 2001).
An outcome of the CNTP was the BTSA program. From the project find
ings, Senator Marian Bergeson wrote SB 1422, which introduced BTSA and added
induction programs to the requirements for teachers to receive full credential certi
fication. The findings included the identification of most effective methods to
support beginning teachers (e.g., mentoring, collaboration, and professional
development) after their preparation and preliminary certification. Furthermore, in
1997, an advisory panel published recommendations for a new multiple-route ap
proach for earning a preliminary teaching credential and completion of a 2-year
induction program to obtain a Professional Clear Credential, making them “highly
qualified” (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1997b). The goal of
BTSA was threefold. First, BTSA was designed to smooth the transition of begin
ning teachers into the multifaceted and complex responsibilities of an educator.
Second, the program was designed to ensure an increase in teacher retention.
BTSA supported new educators to provide a higher level of teaching, leading to the
third goal: increasing student achievement. The original legislated purposes of the
BTSA program were spelled out in Educational Code § 44279.2.
Provide an effective transition into teaching for the first and second year
teachers with a preliminary or clear credential in California;
Improve the educational performance of students through improved
training, information and assistance for new teachers;
Enable the professional success and retention of new teachers who show
promise of becoming highly effective professionals;
Identify teaching novices who need additional feedback, assistance, and
training to realize their potential to become excellent teachers;
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Improve the rigor and consistency of individual teacher performance
assessments and the usefulness of assessment results to teachers and
decision makers;
Establish an effective, coherent system of performance assessments that are
based on a broad framework of common expectations regarding the skills,
abilities, knowledge needed by new teachers; and
Examine alternative ways in which the general public and the education
profession may be assured that new teachers who remain in teaching have
attained acceptable levels of professional competence.
Beyond legislation, recommendations resulting from research on the CNTP
included (a) development of a Draft Framework of Knowledge Skills and Abilities
of Beginning Teachers, (b) the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for New
Teacher Support and Assessment Programs, and (c) new formative performance
assessments of teaching (Olebe, 2001). The BTSA program, although voluntary,
showed significant success in teacher retention, quality, and student achievement.
The success of BTSA led to SB 2042, Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher Induction Programs, which mandated a 2-year induction pe
riod to fulfill the required second tier of the credentialing system that utilized for
mative assessment supporting enhanced teacher practice (California Commission
for Teaching Credentialing, 2002).
To obtain high standards of achievement, the California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing adopted, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction ap
proved, and the State Board of Education endorsed the CSTP. Initially, the stan
dards were set forth to guide beginning teachers in defining and developing their
practice as they were inducted into their professional roles and responsibilities
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education, 1997). CSTP were developed as another outcome of the CNTP, which
provided a common language and vision of the scope and complexity of teaching.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The teaching standards were refined and incorporated into the BTSA program in
1992. The program implemented the findings of current research related to effec
tive teaching practices. These standards focused on six teaching standards that
were developmental and holistic and attempted to meet the needs of California’s
diverse teachers and students (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
1997a).
Collective Bargaining
The passage of SB 160, the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) or Rodda Act, 1976, allowed for some of the particulars related to supervi
sion and teacher evaluation to be subject to the collective bargaining process. This
law directly affected the current system of negotiations between employer and rep
resentation of employees (union). The scope of representation (scope of bargain
ing) related to teacher evaluation fell under California Code 3543.2, which stated
that the scope also includes other terms and conditions of employment. Many
unions had gone to court to expand the scope of their bargaining and had found
success, unless the courts found that the Education Code superseded and preempted
further negotiations on the issue and was determined to be outside of the scope of
negotiations (Dannis, 1998).
According to CSBA (1996), all school districts were required to have an
evaluation policy for rating and assessing the performance of all certificated teach
ers (CSBA, 1996, Ed. Code § 446600-44665). In the majority of instances, union
representation participated in the negotiations of the evaluation process. The
EERA allowed teacher unions to meet with district representation to negotiate
issues during collective bargaining regarding issues that govern employer-
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
employee relations, including the evaluation process (CSBA). Therefore, the
district’s evaluation process had to comply with state statutes and any agreements
made with the bargaining unit, which usually addressed only evaluation procedures
and the appeal process (Webb & Norton, 2003).
Historically, evaluation articles contained in collective bargaining agree
ments have focused on the following: (a) on what teachers are evaluated, (b) how
and when the observations take place, and (c) the criteria by which teachers are
evaluated (Munk, 1998; Riley, Fusano, Munk, & Peterson, 2002). Research has
indicated that, in districts with collective bargaining agreements, principals per
ceived that barriers to teacher performance improvement were caused by language
in the contract. These barriers made it difficult for principals to make appropriate
personnel decisions regarding marginal teachers (Painter, 2000). In many in
stances, collective bargaining has negated the quality of education by its failure to
hold teachers accountable. However, many districts were attempting to include
PAR in the bargaining agreement in order to support the administrator in improving
teachers’ ability to deliver quality instruction to students (Riley et al.).
A study by the Pacific Research Institute analyzed 460 union school district
contracts and found that approximately 75% ceded to the teacher unions a great
deal of influence over issues, including school management, teacher transfer and
assignment, and teacher evaluation and accountability (Izumi, 2002). Critics of
teacher unions have held that the unions’ goals of increasing salaries and protecting
jobs have limited the ability to improve teaching quality, while proponents of
unions have cited an increase in cooperation in efforts to support underperforming
and incompetent teachers (Stedman, 2003). Stedman noted that, as teacher reform
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
efforts increased, districts faced challenges in working with unions to change their
policies and practices.
District
State law affords local districts the flexibility to create alternative forms of
evaluation. It is the district’s responsibility to develop and implement an evalua
tion process that clearly articulates the goals and objectives of the district. The
most commonly mentioned purpose for evaluation, according to Webb and Norton
(2003) has been based upon the National School Boards Association (NSBA) as
follows: (a) ensure that students are provided with high-quality instruction; (b)
meet statutory and contractual requirements; (c) recognize outstanding teacher per
formance; (d) promote professional growth and improvement; (e) provide two-way
communication about school and individual goals, objectives, and performance
concerns; (f) document, in a fair manner, objective information that the board
members and administrators need when making decisions relative to assignments,
transfers, granting of tenure, promotions, or destaffing; and (g) provide evidence to
the community that proper care has been taken to hire, develop, and retain good
teachers.
In developing the evaluation process, four types of criteria (attribute, out
come, process, and performance-based) were used to ensure that the process takes
into account recent research about teaching, learning, and leadership. Attribute
criteria suggested that there were definable traits associated with good teaching.
An outcome criterion was based on rationale that an objective must be stated in
order to show development and achievement. Process criteria related to what the
administrator must do to ensure the process takes place. Performance-based criteria
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
defined effective practices that teachers performed in a regular workday (Webb &
Norton, 2003). Districts also utilized the teaching standards, administrative stan
dards, and student content standards to support the development of the evaluation
process.
Significant strides have been made to improve teacher quality through
evaluation and supervision, due to the public’s belief that schools in the United
States are lacking. Federal, state, and local policies and practices reflect research-
based findings to support the enhancement of teacher practice. Although success
ful practices have been shown to improve student achievement by training and ob
taining highly qualified teachers, there is much work to do to tie successful
practices into the evaluation process.
Teacher Evaluation
The goal of state and local policy related to teacher evaluation is to improve
teacher practice. Currently, many California schools continue to use the teacher
evaluation process as a means to make personnel decisions. The process of
evaluation has come a long way since the early 19th century in response to social
and political changes of the times (Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000). Leadership in turn
has also changed from the earlier established leadership by inspection to that of
instructional leadership. Evaluation is no longer a process to strictly determine bad
teaching. The process has multiple objectives: improve the quality of instruction,
address and provide recommendations for improvement needs, and document to
provide justification (due process) with regard to the teaching staff (Dunklee &
Shoop, 2002; Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000). Since the passing of NCLB, states have
become more accountable. The authors of the National Governors Association
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(NGA) Center for Best Practices (Goldrick, 2002) urged policy makers to (a) define
teaching quality, (b) focus on evaluation practices to improve teaching, (c)
incorporate student learning into teacher evaluation, (d) create professional ac
countability, (e) train evaluators, and (f) broaden participation in evaluation design.
To facilitate this process, many school districts use various forms of evaluation
tools to provide data to support the outcome stated within the summary evaluation.
Student and teaching standards and an enhanced knowledge of the com
plexities of teaching have led educators to develop two models of evaluation.
Summative evaluation is usually related to decision making in which employment
decisions are made, while formative assessment works toward providing informa
tion to improve teacher skills (C. Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The summative
evaluation is a summary of the terminal behaviors or overall performance that is
used to make personnel decisions regarding contract renewals, tenure, performance
pay, assignment to levels of career ladder, and termination (Webb & Norton, 2003).
The formal summative process, unlike the ongoing formative evaluation, does not
include involvement of the teacher in the development of the results or decision.
Traditionally, this model focuses on teacher-directed models (lecture, demonstra
tion, and modeling) derived from the 1980s and fails to include the authentic
aspects of teaching that encourage reflection, and collegial interactions (Weiss &
Weiss, 1998).
Formative evaluation has a significant role in instructional leadership and
supervision. This ongoing evaluation process is employee directed, individualized,
and geared to support professional growth and its goal is to provide self-
improvement and professional development (Webb & Norton, 2003). This form of
evaluation has been specifically used to gain insight into what teachers know or do
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not know in order to facilitate changes in teacher practice. Formative assessment
encourage reflective practices that facilitate enhanced teaching practices over time
(Boston, 2002). To facilitate the process of evaluation, various models of certifi
cated supervision have been attempted to blend formative evaluation with summa
tive evaluation to determine the effectiveness of teachers.
Clinical Supervision
Clinical supervision is the most common form of formative assessment and
is also known as the administrative observation model. The process of clinical su
pervision is based on a cycle of supervision with three phases: planning confer
ence, classroom observation, and feedback conference (Acheson & Gall, 2003;
Sullivan & Glanzer, 2000). Unfortunately, there are several reasons why this form
of teacher supervision may not be effective. The weaknesses of this type of
evaluation include teacher resistance, communication patterns, and time. Teachers
are resistant to the supervisory process because it is responsible for evaluating and
rating individual teachers. Outcomes of this process could significantly impact a
teacher, especially if they are negative (Acheson & Gall). Further resistance occurs
because some teachers view the process as a need on the part of the admini strator to
fulfill mandates set forth by state law and school boards; therefore, the resulting
observational data can be highly subjective and vague (Acheson & Gall; Boyd,
1989). Traditionally, ineffective communication has existed between teacher and
administrator. This is especially true if prior interactions are avoided or minimized
between the parties due to resistance capacity. Resistance occurs especially if the
administrator sits across from the teacher in an administrative role to hold the feed
back conference (Acheson & Gall).
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For the administrator, effective supervision time is of the essence. How
ever, research has indicated that heavy workloads significantly impacted the
amount of time that an administrator can spend in a classroom conferring with
teachers and planning improvement reform (Acheson & Gall, 2003; Boyd, 1989).
A lack of close supervision due to time constraints or a supervisor’s belief that the
process is ineffective and too time consuming to remove an unsatisfactory teacher
had led to ineffective teachers obtaining tenure (Painter, 2000). Although there is
rationale for not utilizing clinical supervision practices, clinical supervision can be
effective if the implementation is well thought out and incorporates structures and
strategies that include reflection, analysis, effective communication, and teacher
participation.
Portfolio
The portfolio is used as a tool by which a teacher gathers evidence to sup
port the evaluator in the evaluation process and provide feedback to teachers to
improve instruction. School administrators are able to use the portfolio method for
assessing a teacher’s performance, using analytical rubrics, standards, and criteria
for the summative evaluation (Diamond & Handi, 2002; Drake & McBride, 2000;
Painter, 2001). The information collected by the teacher in a portfolio includes a
teacher’s specific developmental goal, teacher and student work samples, and the
teacher’s reflections that showcase and demonstrate the educator’s skills, knowl
edge, and professional growth regarding teaching and students’ learning (Doolittle,
1994). Using the portfolio method of evaluation, a teacher can connect prior
teaching practices with current practices, utilizing reflective strategies to indicate
what the teacher knows and is able to do in the classroom (Drake & McBride;
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watson, 1998). Reflective practices allow teachers to go beyond practical teaching
and to think analytically about content and research-based practices used to meet
the needs of their students (Drake & McBride). Some school systems have imple
mented a 5-year evaluation cycle for tenure teachers, which includes 2 years of
strategy development and data collection and the following 3 years for focused ex
ploration, collaboration, and independent study (Diamond & Handi).
Teachers can use various methods to develop their portfolios. The National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards model incorporates video taping that
enables teachers to analyze their teaching and provide a sample lesson, assignment,
and student work that provides data related to teacher skills in high-level reasoning,
problem solving, and reflection (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Electronic portfolios have
been used as a method to organize and provide data and reflective information that
highlights a teacher’s expertise and growth using word-processed documents, slide
presentations, statistics, and Web sites (Heath, 2002). The expectations within the
portfolio can be differentiated for novice and experienced teachers to meet the spe
cific developmental needs of the individual teachers (Drake & McBride, 2000;
Heath). The portfolio method of evaluation allows for teachers to have more
control over their professional development, eliminates “snap shot” observations of
a teacher’s performance, and allows for the teacher’s professional development to
be tied to student performance (Diamond & Handi, 2002).
The portfolio method is an authentic process of teaching by which teachers
develop professionally by engaging in an open-ended process that encourages
teachers to revisit and reflect on their practices to determine what strategies were
effective and what strategies were ineffective (Painter, 2001). To create and de
velop a portfolio takes a great deal of preparation and time. Using an electronic
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
portfolio allows for increased flexibility, updating, and easier maintenance of the
evidence that could be presented to an evaluator (Heath, 2002). Still, many teach
ers are resistant to the process due to lack of guidance and support, lack of or con
fusion about district criteria, and the time required to make the process effective
(Painter).
A study in 1993 regarding teachers’ perceptions of teacher performance
evaluation was conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES). Prior to this study, little was known about teachers’ perceptions of per
formance evaluations on the part of kindergarten through sixth-grade teachers who
had been formally evaluated. In that study, 89% of the teachers reported that their
evaluations were an accurate indicator of their teaching performance, 63% claimed
to be able to design a plan for their professional development based on their last
performance evaluation, and 74% stated that their last evaluation had improved
their teaching skills. Teachers who participated in this study indicated that the
evaluation promoted the enhancement of teaching but they reported that it did not
assist the administration in making personnel decisions. Those who responded
strongly identified that the evaluation process should not be used for the summative
evaluation but that it should be used for the dismissal of incompetent teachers
(NCES, 1994).
C. Danielson and McGreal (2000) described six main deficiencies of the
current system of the evaluation system: (a) The evaluation system had outdated
and limited evaluative criteria, (b) the perceptions of what good teaching looks like
were varied, (c) the rating scales lacked validity, (d) differentiation between new
and experienced teachers was not addressed, (e) communication was usually
evaluator driven, and (f) many administrators lacked expertise in content areas
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Boyd, 1989). As research-based practices emerge, new approaches to teaching
and student learning should be addressed in the evaluation practice.
Since the evaluation process goals were twofold (evaluating teacher per
formance to make personnel decisions and improving faculty performance), this
arguably created a disagreement regarding whether one single process could meet
both objectives with limits in time, money, and personnel to ensure practicality
(Neil, 1988). The goals of the evaluation process may have not been clear to both
the evaluator and those being evaluated. A disconnect existed between evaluation
to improve teaching practices and evaluation to rate a teacher’s performance. Rat
ing teaching performance took on a holistic form of evaluation of the general qual
ity of instruction while addressing teacher development of specific practices and
skills. To be an effective tool to improve teacher and administrator quality and
student learning, the process must address specific criteria relevant to a school’s
reform movement and take into account student achievement (Watson, 1998).
Current Efforts to Improve Teacher Practice
A variety of efforts outside of the evaluation process is currently being
made to improve teacher practice. Studies such as the 1999-2000 Education Com
mission of the States (ECS) report In Pursuit o f Quality Teaching: Five Key
Strategies for Policymakers have identified the following areas in which resources
should be targeted to enhance teaching and student learning: preparation and in
duction of new teachers, recruitment and retention, professional development in
building content knowledge and teaching skills, licensure, evaluation, and account
ability procedures linked to standards, and school and district leadership targeting
improvement in teaching and learning (as cited in Geringer, 2003). In light of strict
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability, administrators and teachers can no longer rely strictly on instinct,
experience, and past practice but must instead analyze data and use research-based
practices to make decisions to enhance students’ learning (Wade, 2001).
Factors That Influence Teacher Practice
In the document The Essential Profession: California Education at the
Crossroads Haselkom and Harris (2001) reported that a consensus of Californians
believed that public education was essential and that teacher quality was of utmost
importance in making quality schools. Research has shown a clear relationship
between low student achievement and low standards, low-level curriculum, and
underprepared teachers (Haycock, 1998). According to Moir and Gless (2001),
research has indicated a crucial link between student achievement and the quality in
which a teacher was instructed (Darling-Hammond, Ball, & Loewenberg, 1998;
Geringer, 2003). Effort has been made to determine methods to improve classroom
teaching to provide teachers a knowledge base that subsequently will increase stu
dent learning (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002).
Many veteran teachers have reported that the teacher educational courses
that they experienced rarely helped them in their practice (Darling-Hammond,
Wise, & Klien, 1995; Moir & Gless, 2001). These studies indicated that it was a
myth that the traditional methods of teacher credentialing programs graduate edu
cators who are prepared to teach unassisted in a classroom. To add to this defi
ciency, about half of the teachers entering the classroom did not have a preliminary
credential or had not had the opportunity to work with a supervising veteran teacher
(Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2002). However, there is a
growing need for highly qualified teachers due to the demand to meet the
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
challenges that face California, including enrollment growth, increased diverse
cultural and linguistic population, accountability to enhance student achievement,
and a demanding market requiring skilled employees in the workplace (California
Commission on Teaching Credentialing, 2001).
Even more concerning is that the majority of unqualified teachers tend to
work directly with those students who were of low socioeconomic status and have
the greatest need for quality instruction (Betts, Ruben, & Danenberg, 2000;
Haselkom & Harris, 2001). To ensure that teachers are well prepared and well
equipped to succeed in teaching challenging content to diverse students, a greater
investment in teacher preparation and development is essential (Darling-Hammond
et al., 1998; Haselkom & Harris). DataWorks Educational Research conducted a
study that identified specific components that directly impacted the API: time on
task, curriculum alignment, breadth of curriculum, assessments, learning environ
ment, instructional practices, resources, staff development, professional relation
ships, and teacher effectiveness (Ybarra & Hollingsworth, 2001). To ensure that
quality teaching practices occur in the classroom, many schools utilize practices
and tools that directly impact classroom teaching.
Professional Development
High-quality long-term professional development that focuses on the link
between student learning and curriculum and teacher collaboration to share their
knowledge has been shown to support student achievement (Hiebert et al., 2002).
Included in the facilitation of professional development, it is important to incorpo
rate a component utilizing researched-based strategies that include articulation of
professional knowledge, or what Hiebert et al. called “craft.” To increase student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning, professional development based on standards supported teachers in pro
viding rigor and setting high expectations for students (Pardini, 2001).
The teaching of two generations ago, when the teacher was the active deliv
erer and the students acted as passive receivers, is still seen within classrooms
today. This method of teaching is not as productive as the facilitation of
classroom-based research, innovation, and student engagement. To develop the
skills and knowledge necessary for a teacher to change pedagogy, ongoing acquisi
tion of knowledge and the production of new knowledge could be provided through
professional development opportunities (Geringer, 2003).
Ronald Boyd (1989) of the American Institutes for Research stated that it
was possible to connect professional development to enhance teacher evaluations
by (a) working with teachers to set specific goals and objectives, (b) providing con
structive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and (c) procuring the support
of experienced teachers to improve those who are less experienced. To support
school improvement, efforts must be made to develop quality staff development
that can be integrated into the teacher evaluation process (Iwanicki, 2001). Site-
based decision making and collaboration significantly enhanced professional de
velopment activities by making teachers part of a collective team focusing on
student achievement (Ash & Persall, 2000).
Unfortunately, longitudinal research has shown that most teachers have not
received focused, consistent, and quality professional development. A study con
ducted by the NCES (2000) reported that teachers typically spent 8 hours or less on
professional development activities. However, improvement in teaching practice
has been reported by those who were more likely to spend more than 8 hours.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Collaboration
Professional development provides teachers with ongoing experience in
authentic settings for teaching and student learning. Collaboration found its roots
in constructivism, where learning is a byproduct of shared inquiry, exploration, and
discovery that encouraged groups to work toward a common goal by interacting
and reflecting on their perceptions and sharing varied insights in order to negotiate
meaning (Alesandrini & Larson, 2002; Fullan, 1999). Constructivists view schools
as leaming-communities where teachers share their views of being life-long learn
ers and decision makers to gain the skills and knowledge to meet the holistic needs
of students (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Master teachers seek opportunities to collabo
rate and network to ensure a learning community focused on students (Geringer,
2003).
Student achievement is enhanced by teacher collaboration for the purpose of
analyzing student work and test data, looking for trends and patterns, and develop
ing ideas on how to improve in various areas using researched-based practices and
strategies. Quality teaching incorporates knowledge-based lessons that help
students to make connections to deepen their understandings. Students who are
able to choose strategies to meet the established goals provide teachers with evi
dence of what students are learning (Pardini, 2001). Meaningful learning com
munities among school sites and districts lessen the isolation that teachers
experience (L. Danielson, 2002; NCES, 2000). Teachers who participated in col
laborative activities reported feeling better prepared to be successful in their class
room assignments (NCES, 2000).
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mentoring
Mentoring has become an important strategy in developing quality teachers
(Moir & Gless, 2001; Pearson & Honig, 1992; Watson, 1998). Quality mentorship
takes preparation and professional development that trains qualified veteran teach
ers to observe, provide feedback, communicate, resolve conflict, study one’s own
teaching, communicate the process for learning, and provide appropriate challenges
to foster reflective thinking (L. Danielson, 2002; Moir & Gless, 2001). Without
specific training, researchers were reported to be concerned about the quality of
mentors. Untrained mentors may have perpetuated traditional approaches to
teaching and student learning (Watson). Quality mentoring, best known as a
support tool for new teachers, has repeatedly been shown to be successful. A
mentor’s job is to assist teachers in questioning their practice and recognizing their
strengths and weaknesses and developing personal efficacy and ongoing growth
(Danielson). To achieve results, support activities include observation (each other),
demonstration (coaching), conferencing (feedback), and joint participation (Smith,
2002). Although the novice teacher receives positive outcomes, the mentor is also
impacted in a positive manner.
Left in isolation, novice and veteran teachers leave the profession discour
aged. Formal and informal mentoring could create an environment for deep reflec
tion and encourage ongoing learning and growth that increase job satisfaction (L.
Danielson, 2002). An executive summary on teacher preparation and professional
development conducted by NCES (2000) indicated that educators perceived that
most teachers were not likely to serve formally as mentors or be formally men
tored. However, current literature has shown that formal mentoring programs sig
nificantly impacted teacher practice, increased retention, enhanced teacher attitudes
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and feelings of efficacy, increased the level of instructional strategies, and contrib
uted to the professionalism of education (NCES, 2000; Smith, 2002). Barriers to
effective mentoring include resources and time for training and release days. To be
an effective process for improving teacher practice, school leadership has been en
couraged to promote a climate and culture that support the strategies and practices
proven to be effective (Watson, 1998).
School Culture and Teacher Performance
Research by Suzanne Painter (2000) indicated that administrators identified
several problems associated with evaluating low-performing teachers: limited time
to work with teachers, time-consuming evaluation procedures, lack of district
support, trepidation when confronting the teacher, and disruption to the school site
when the teacher initiates peer support. The role of the administrator in supervision
and instructional leadership plays a significant role in the school culture and teacher
efficacy. In the 1980s research reported that successful schools had instructional
leadership and supervision that focused on curriculum and instruction.
Although this method disappeared during the 1990s, it returned as a strategy
to meet the increasing demands for accountability. Supervision includes a higher
level of administrative involvement in the process of teaching and learning, profes
sional development, and data decision making (Lashway, 2002). A study by Bruce
Sheppard in the 1980s showed a correlation between supervision and instructional
leadership behaviors and (a) teacher commitment, (b) professional involvement,
and (c) innovativeness. However, the schools in which the administration and
teachers had common professional norms and values and where the leadership was
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
distributed among staff members showed sustained focus over time (Sheppard,
2003).
Supervision
The role of the administrator had significantly changed over the years as
research has uncovered effective innovations that improved teaching practices and
student learning. Principals had become more responsible for providing an effec
tive learning program for students. The responsibility of supervision, unlike
evaluation, could have been delegated to chairs, peers, mentors, or colleagues
(Costa & Garmston, 1985). Administrators and support staff needed to collect,
analyze, disseminate, and train teachers to interpret the data to identify weaknesses
to enhance student achievement (Wade, 2001). Supervision was an ongoing
process that focused primarily on improvement of instruction (Costa &Garmston).
School Culture
It is essential that teachers be treated as professionals in a school climate
that values respect and trust and where communication of goals and objectives are
shared (Iwanicki, 2001). For students to be successful, it is essential that teachers
continually learn, enhance their teaching practices and knowledge, collaborate to
solve problems, share ideas and learning, and actively participate in leadership
roles (Ash & Persall, 2000). To have an effective learning environment, schools
have focused on educational and change efforts that set high expectations for
student and teacher performance; created opportunities for effective professional
development, collaboration, encouragement, support for innovation; and shared
values about teaching (Ash & Persall; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995).
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A study reported by Barbara Sargent (2003) regarding an increased teacher
retention rate at an elementary school district showed that teacher retention and
contribution had a great deal to do with the professional relationship that allowed
for teacher empowerment. Many teachers, as reflective learners, looked toward the
instructional environment to determine self-competence. A culture that encouraged
collaboration allowed teachers to develop their teaching abilities, stimulate their
desire to learn, and engage individuals as self-directed learners (Paulsen &
Feldman, 1995). Teachers who were recognized for their accomplishments and
contributions were more apt to become members of the school culture and remain
vital contributing members of the community throughout their careers (Sargent).
To implement a culture that shares common values and attitudes, the be
haviors of some teachers must be altered. According to Paulsen and Feldman
1995), teachers were encouraged to become reflective educators, were trained in
the collaborative process, and supported the development of an environment con
ducive to student learning and effective teaching. Literature has indicated that
teacher practices was enhanced where collegiality existed, as a form of supervision,
within a learning environment (Spitz, 2001). Spitz noted that the process to which
a teaching staff attended was as valuable as or more valuable than the outcome.
Teacher Efficacy
Teachers have a direct impact on student learning. Those educators who
felt a sense of community and high morale had a positive impact on classrooms
(Cohen, 2002). Various studies have concluded that between 35% and 50% of new
teachers, especially in low socioeconomic areas, leave the profession within the
first 5 years (Banks, 1999; Moir & Gless, 2001). School sites perpetuate the cycle
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of new teachers exiting the profession by giving beginning teachers the most chal
lenging classroom and by not promoting a supportive environment (L. Danielson,
2002). Complex issues arise daily for the new teacher. The traditional system does
not provide support, which causes the new teacher to solve problems and work in
dependently; therefore, many talented teachers have been driven out of the profes
sion (Banks; Moir & Gless). Left to isolation, novice and veteran teaches leave the
profession discouraged; however, formal and informal mentoring has created envi
ronments for deep reflection and encouraged ongoing learning and growth that
increased job satisfaction (Danielson).
Conclusions
Since the early 20th century, the responsibility of the principals and assis
tant principals has been to supervise and evaluate daily teacher practices to ensure
the quality of student education. Site administrators are working more collabora-
tively with teachers to improve instruction and student achievement. Principals
have gained the title of instructional leaders and, because of state and federal legis
lation, they are more responsible and accountable for student achievement at their
school sites.
Teacher evaluation was established to (a) make employment decisions and
(b) improve teacher practice. Teachers who are of nonpermanent status are more
likely to be deemed unsatisfactory and released from teaching positions. Those
who are permanent have significant employment rights through legislation and the
collective bargaining process. Through the evaluation process, safeguards have
been put in place to ensure procedures that protect the interests of the teacher and
the district. New teachers to the profession are able to participate in BTSA
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs to help them to improve on their teaching practices. To support perma
nent teachers who do not meet standards through the evaluation system, the PAR
programs are utilized to support and improve teacher practice.
On the other hand, the majority of teachers evaluated are qualified and
capable educators who consistently meet standards. For those teachers, the funda
mental purpose for the evaluation process is to improve teacher practice.
Collective bargaining agreements have limited the ability of many schools districts
to improve teacher quality (Stedman, 2003). However, districts have worked col-
laboratively with unions to implement further methods of the teacher evaluation,
beyond the administrative observations. These alternative forms of evaluation
utilize research-based practices that incorporate collaboration, research, and reflec
tive strategies. New methods of teacher evaluation include the portfolio and part
nership options.
Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the evaluation process as a whole is an
effective form of improving teacher practice. The drive toward educational reform
has led to a number of studies that have reported an increase in the quality of
teaching. Many findings have come from the CNTP. The CSTP set the bar for
expectations of professional educators. Within these imbedded standards are what
current studies have shown to improve teaching practices: professional develop
ment, collaboration, mentoring, supervision, school culture, and teacher efficacy.
Teacher evaluation without supervision is significantly limiting. Adminis
trators and districts are accountable for student achievement. To improve the aca
demic levels of children, administrators must recognize, support, and perpetuate the
enhancement of teacher practice. The evaluation process may have been estab
lished to support this endeavor; however, it may not be the most effective and
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
efficient method to improve teacher practice. Since law mandates the evaluation
process, changes may be needed to ensure that the outcome of this time-consuming
effort does what it was developed to achieve.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe the per
ceptions and impact of the district-mandated teacher evaluation process and other
site factors that impact teacher practice at a K-6 elementary school. This chapter
presents the research questions and a description of the research methodology. The
methodology included a review of literature, the sampling procedure and popula
tion, instrumentation, procedures for data collection, and analysis. Qualitative
methodologies were applied to this study to ensure that an in-depth look at the
practices and perceptions was realistic and practical. Another purpose of this study
was to utilize the collected data from the thematic group, including this and 13
other dissertational studies, to provide extensive data that would reveal common
themes to support a meta-analysis of teacher evaluation and its impact on teacher
practice.
The Problem
Throughout the nation there has been growing interest in teacher quality and
accountability. California has mandated through its Education Code that districts
be responsible for designing and implementing teacher evaluation. Each district
has become responsible to develop an evaluation process that supports and en
hances teacher practice. Site administrators, principals, and assistant principals
have been challenged to implement the evaluation process and ensure that, through
the process, teacher practice would be enhanced.
There exists a problem regarding whether administrators and teachers
believe that the evaluation process is an effective tool to develop teacher practice or
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
whether other factors are perceived to be more productive. School staff and district
members are further challenged to decide which factors are most beneficial in en
hancing teacher practice. An analysis is needed to determine how to incorporate
these practices into a more effective evaluation process that is compliant with Cali
fornia state law.
In conducting descriptive qualitative research, a case study was performed
to collect data from a school district and site that included surveys, interviews, ob
servations, and document reviews. According to Gall et al. (2003, p. 439) the three
purposes for conducting a case study are: (a) to produce a detailed description of a
phenomenon, (b) to develop possible explanations of it, and (c) to evaluate the phe
nomenon. A descriptive qualitative research method was identified as being the
appropriate methodology to conduct this research, which was looking specifically
for constructs and themes. Along with the literature, the prevailing concepts and
ideas could be used to explain whether the phenomenon of evaluation was an ef
fective tool to enhance teacher practice.
This case study was delimited to a BUSD elementary school site in con
junction with district administrators who were directly involved in the teacher
evaluation process. The school site was chosen based on criteria set by the the
matic dissertation group, indicating a high level of student achievement as com
pared to similar schools. The decision to delimit the study to one school was to
ensure an in-depth analysis of the evaluation process and factors perceived to be
responsible for enhancement of teacher practice and, therefore, the school’s
achievement.
Qualitative and quantitative methodologies were applied in the study to en
sure that an in-depth look at the practices and perceptions was realistic and
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practical; therefore, the results represented a natural context within a real-world
setting (Isaac & Michael, 1997). This topic was concurrently being investigated by
a group of 14 doctoral candidates whose goal was to provide data toward a
thematic topic. The collected data from the various case studies provide extensive
information that reveals common themes used to support a meta-analysis of teacher
evaluation and its impact on teacher practice.
The Research Questions
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evalua
tion?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
Sample and Population
A thematic dissertation group of 14 doctoral students worked together to
determine the criteria for the population selection. The selection of the school was
based on California API for K-12 schools. The school site was required to meet the
following criteria: (a) The school outperformed its statewide API ranking com
pared to similar schools by 1 or more points, (b) the school demonstrated at least 3
years of high performance, and (c) the school was considered to be an academically
high-performing school and currently having an API score of at least 700.
The chosen school site was considered a high-performing urban school with
a high rate of low socioeconomic students as determined by a minimum of 50% of
the students on the National School Lunch Program, receiving free or reduced-price
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lunch services. Rationale for the choice of a school with socioeconomically disad
vantaged students was based upon research regarding economically disadvantaged
students. These studies indicated that less advantaged children tended to score sig
nificantly lower than more economically advantaged students on standardized tests
(Chall & Jacobs, 2003). Therefore, it would seem evident that a phenomenon oc
curred at schools where a majority of children came from disadvantaged homes and
were able to achieve higher academically than those in schools with similar char
acteristics. At the time of the study, the stakeholders involved were (a) 1 site ad
ministrator, (b) 35 certificated teachers, and (c) 2 district administrators who
supported the evaluation process and enhancement of teacher practice.
Selected District
The district in which the Boulder Elementary School is located is the
BUSD, located in Bedrock, California. This study was conducted with the ap
proval of the superintendent and the governing board. At the beginning of the
study, August 2004, the district was had three comprehensive (9-12) high schools,
one magnet (9-12) high school, one continuation (9-12) high school, four (7-8)
middle schools, a developmental center for multihandicapped students, and 20 (K-
6) elementary schools. The enrollment of the school district was approximately
30,000 students and 3,000 teachers, administrators, and support staff. The demog
raphy of the district differed markedly from that of the location of the school site.
Schools in the northern region of Bedrock were of higher socioeconomic status
than schools located in the southern portion of the school district. Of the 20 ele
mentary schools, 10 were considered to be school-wide Title I. Along with a sig
nificant number of students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged, the school
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district was responsible for educating students with over 60 primary languages.
Many of the schools in the BUSD had the same characteristics as urban schools
facing similar challenges.
Many urban districts face the challenges associated with accountability.
According to the mandated Classroom Instructional Improvement and Account
ability Act, all schools located in the BUSD were required to meet yearly API
targets. The most current API results for the 2003-2004 school year indicated that
the district elementary school ranking base was 774, reflecting testing scores for
22,269 second- through sixth-grade students. The range among BUSD elementary
schools’ base API scores was 691 to 910. Of those students in grades 2 through 11
taking the STAR tests, 10,252 were socioeconomically disadvantaged and received
Title I services.
Selected School
The selected school site, Boulder, had earned the distinction of being a Cali
fornia Distinguished School in 2004 and a California Title I Achieving School in
2004. The Annual School Report Card 2002-2003 showed that this school had an
API of 751 and a growth of 101 points over 3 consecutive years, 2000-2003 (Table
1). This school site served 946 students in kindergarten through sixth grade on a
year-round school calendar. Boulder Elementary student population included 58%
White (not of Hispanic origin), 27% Hispanic, 8% Filipino, 5% Asian, and 1% Af
rican American. Many of the White non-Hispanic students were of Armenian
descent. Over 81% of the student population participated in the free or
reduced-price lunch programs, 68% were English Language Learners. The educa
tional background of these students’ parents, based on a 92% response rate from
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Academic Performance Index (API) Ranking for the Target School
Measure n
Number of students included in the 2003 API 714
2003 API (base) 748
2003 state-wide rank 6th
2003 similar schools rank 8th
2003-2004 growth target 2
2004 API target 753
the parents, was as follows: (a) 9% did not graduate from high school, (b) 38% had
graduated from high school, and (c) 52% either had attended college or had gradu
ated from college (Table 2).
Site Participants
In 2004-2005 the certificated staff consisted of the principal, a teacher spe
cialist, 39 regular education classroom teachers, one resource specialist program
teachers, and two special day classroom teachers. All 44 of these certificated em
ployees held a California Teaching Credential in the 2004 school year (Table 3).
Teacher Credential Status
Teacher credential data may not have been submitted or a teacher might
have held one or more types of credentials. As a result, total number of teachers
may not equal the total of the individual categories.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
Characteristics o f the Boulder Elementary School and Bedrock Unified School
District
Characteristic School District
Total student enrollment 900 14,100
Race/Ethnicity (%)
American Indian 1 0.017
Asian/Pacific Islander 3 13.340
African American 1 1.340
Hispanic/Latino 27 25.650
Filipino 9 4.770
White (non-Hispanic) 59 54.030
Demographic data (%)
Free/reduced-price lunch 80 47.000
English Language Learners 70 41.600
Title I School-wide N/A
Table 3
Characteristics o f the Teaching Staff at Boulder Elementary School
Characteristic 2001 2002 2003 2004
Fully credentialed 46 46 43 44
Working outside subject 0 0 0 0
Emergency credentials 5 5 6 0
Interns 2 2 3 0
Waivers 0 0 0 0
Total teachers 53 53 50 44
Average years teaching 10.5 10.4 11.9
Average years in district 8.4 8.2 9.6
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District Administrative Support
Three district administrators were selected to participate in this study, based
on their knowledge of the evaluation process and professional development. The
first administrator was the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, who was
responsible for supervising all performance evaluations throughout the district and
providing training for administrators in the evaluation process. The second admin
istrator was the Director of Human Resources, who was responsible for supporting
the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources in supervising performance
evaluations and training administrators in the evaluation process. The third ad
ministrator was the Director of Professional Development, who was responsible for
providing principals, assistant principals, and teachers with training on the evalua
tion process and other professional activities to enhance teacher practice.
The full profile of the sample for the study and the instruments that each
group completed are summarize in Table 4.
Design
A thematic dissertation group collaborated to determine which qualitative
methodology would gather the most appropriate information for the study. Each
member of the group was responsible for conducting a case study of a single school
site in the California K-12 public education system. Initially, the dissertation group
was responsible for identifying a problem worthy of studying. Once the problem
was identified, the group worked to translate the problem into the stated research
questions. Qualitative methods formatively evaluated and assessed the process and
procedures of program development and implementation (Isaac & Michael, 1997).
Further discussion by the thematic group indicated that a survey (collecting
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4
Profile o f the Sample and the Instruments Completed by Members o f the Sample
Instruments
Participants n Location completed
District administrator 1 District Office Interview3
District administrator 1 District Office Interview
District administrator 1 Professional Development Center Interview
Site administrator 1 Elementary School Site Interview
Teachers 8 Elementary School Site Interview
Teachers 35 Elementary School Site Quantitative survey
Researcher 1 District Office, School Site Interview, observation,
researcher rating form
“ Case Study Guide interview.
quantitative data) should be included in the case study to support the interview and
observational data. The rationale for using qualitative methods were as follows:
1. The case study took place in a natural setting, with the acknowledgment
that human behavior was best understood in its real world context.
2. The researcher, as observer, was the primary instrument for data collec
tion and was responsible for shedding light on the phenomena.
3. Human perception leads to multiple realities, yet each reality is legiti
mate and therefore considered to be “real.”
4. A purposeful sampling was made to shed light on a wide range of cases
and uncover multiple realities to maximize the researcher’s ability to assess the
nature of conditions, interactions, and values.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Qualitative methods were adaptable to multiple realities.
6. The case study method is adaptable to multiple realities and lends itself
to providing a thick description of the phenomenon (Isaac & Michael, 1997).
Isaac and Michael (1997) clearly articulated the three factors that the group
took into account while planning the evaluation study: (a) the precise nature of the
information that was needed to answer questions about the effectiveness of the
program, (b) the optimal means of obtaining that information, and (c) an ongoing
awareness of the primary audience that would receive the report to ensure that the
methods and type of analyses used were be appropriate and understandable.
Frameworks for the Research Questions
The first research question asked, What is the district’ s policy and strategy
for carrying out teacher evaluation? State and federal legislation, local board
policy, collective bargaining agreements, and district implementation programs
provided the structure in which this research question was designed. Within this
question four subfactors were addressed: (a) overview of state policy and law as
used in the district, (b) district policy and procedures for teacher evaluation, (c)
district approaches to teacher improvement and their relations to teacher evaluation,
and (d) district data about teacher performance and its use.
The second research question asked, How does the school carry out the
teacher evaluation? Two subquestions were:
1. To what extent has the district teacher evaluation policy been carried out
at the school level?
2. How do the district, school, and individual teacher hold each other ac
countable?
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The third research question asked, What factors have shaped this school
level effort? The four frames developed by Bolman and Deal (1997)—symbolic,
political, human resource, and structural—provided the theoretical framework
within which this question was designed. The subquestions that were addressed
were:
1. What is the nature of the school’s leadership?
2. What are items of influence that have shaped the school’s teacher
evaluation practice?
The fourth research question asked, How effective is the teachers ’ evalua
tion process at the school level? Five subquestions were:
1. What were the administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the teacher
evaluation process?
2. Is there evidence of changes in teacher practice emanating from the
evaluation process?
3. To what degree are other school efforts improving teacher practices?
4. What is the effectiveness of resources used to implement teacher evalua
tion?
5. What are the consequences for perceived “weak” and “strong” teachers?
Instrument Development
The survey, interview questions, and observation template were developed
by the thematic dissertation group using the following procedures:
1. The thematic group collaboratively developed the research instruments
after reviewing the literature and consulting with the doctoral committee members,
including a statistician.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. A subgroup of the thematic group conducted an informal pilot study
using the survey instruments in which 5 persons where chosen from a similar
population of stakeholders for the purpose of pretesting the instruments for accu
racy.
3. The instruments were revised based on suggestions provided by the pilot
group and through discussion and dialogue with the thematic dissertation group.
The survey instruments for this study were loosely based on Ebmeier’s
(2003) research tools used to determine a link between teacher efficacy and com
mitment (appendix A). A survey was created to collect data on teacher perceptions.
Included in the survey were statements in the domains of background information,
policy, teacher evaluation, ongoing teacher supervision, school efforts, school
culture, and teacher beliefs. With the exception of the background information
section, each statement was based on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = Strongly Dis
agree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree) to determine the level of the
respondents’ perceptions (Gall et al., 2003).
The interview questions were formed based on the same domains as the
survey. Interview questions were developed as open-ended questions to collect
in-depth responses (appendix B and appendix C). Using the survey data, probing
questions were asked to enhance the researcher’s understanding of the phenome
non. The responses were audiotaped to ensure that information was reported accu
rately. Each response was carefully evaluated as to dominant frame (Bolman &
Deal, 2000).
A document review template (appendix D) was designed to analyze written
legislation, policies, and practices that support teacher evaluation and practices.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An observation template (appendix E) was developed to document specific
activities occurring at the site that supported the data collected via the document
review, interviews, and surveys.
To organize the collected data to answer the research questions, a subgroup
of the thematic dissertation group created a graphic organizer to analyze and deter
mine which specific questions and data collection supported which research ques
tion (Table 5).
Data Collection
The blueprint for this study employed descriptive research along with the
use of a Likert-type survey with 4-point attitudinal scales. In fall 2004, site cre-
dentialed staff were asked to respond to the survey (appendix A), which was de
signed to get a general measure of individuals’ perceptions of policy, the
effectiveness of the evaluation process, ongoing teacher supervision, school efforts,
school culture, and beliefs to enhance teacher practice. The surveys were given to
all site certificated teachers following the approval of the dissertation study by ad
ministrators from the district and school site. The administrators were provided a
brief description of the purpose of the study accompanied by the research
instruments and timeline. The processes included data collection via surveys, in
terviews, and observations conducted by the researcher.
Data Collection via Survey
The anonymous surveys were distributed in a packet containing directions,
teacher profile information form, a survey form, and return instructions. A letter to
the principal, teachers, and district personnel was provided requesting their coop
eration. The survey was given to teachers at a single site in BUSD. Surveys were
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
Research Tools and Items Associated With Specific Research Questions
Research
question
Teacher
survey
questions
Teacher
interview
questions
Administrator
interview
questions
Document
review Observations
1. What is the
district’s policy
and strategy for
carrying out
teacher evalua
tion?
3-5, 45 1,4,6 Stull, col
lective bar
gaining,
Board pol
icy, memo
randa,
evaluation
tools
Support for
awareness of
district policy
2. How does the
school carry out
teacher evalua
tion?
6-16 1,2,4,
12, 14
4,6 Single Plan,
School Pro
fessional
Plan,
Evaluation
tools
3. What factors
have shaped this
school level ef
fort?
17-52 2, 4,
6-11,
13-23
1-3, 5-13 Strong support
for school
culture and
climate
4. How effective
is the teacher
evaluation pro
cess at the school
level?
5-16,
39-41
2-6, 8, 9,
12, 14,
23
4,6 Support for
actual com
munication
styles and
perceptions
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collected via return-addressed envelopes. Data collected via survey supported the
development and direction of the interview questions and was used to chart the
observation portion of data collection.
Data Collection via Interviews
Data collected from the survey was used to analyze and refine the teacher
and administrator interview questions (appendix B and appendix C) and observa
tion templates (appendix E). The interview questions were developed by the case
study group with the advice of the researchers’ committee members to address the
site principal’s, district administrators’, and teachers’ perceptions. Teacher partici
pants in the interview process were determined by their return of a solicitation for
participation, in addition to input from the principal. The letter of solicitation in
cluded a formal letter outlining the various methods of interviewing, including
grade-level or leadership groups or on the basis of an individual meeting. Individ
ual consent forms (appendix F) signed by participants were logged by the re
searcher prior to the interview. Interview times and locations were established to
meet the needs of the teachers. The researcher carried out all interviews. The in
terview process was conducted in a uniform manner using the interview question
forms. All interviewees were given time to respond adequately to each question.
The questions focused on perceptions of the evaluation process and other factors
perceived to have a significant impact on teacher practice.
Data Collection via Observation
The observations included school site visits to allow the researcher to use
Bolman and Deal’s four frames of organizations to interpret the collected data:
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Bolman and Deal (1997) noted
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that, because organizations are complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambitious, spe
cific tools and frames allow for clarity and meaning in defining and understanding
the influences on an organization.
The observation process included researcher visits to the school campus and
classrooms, documentation charted on observational sheets, and categorization of
all observations into the four frames. Federal, state, local and site-based documents
were reviewed (see appendix E) to determine whether there was triangulation of
policy and practice data. The researcher collected various documents that dealt
with teacher evaluation, teacher practice, policy, and procedures. The documents
were reviewed for implications of improving teacher practice. The data collected
supported further investigation through observations and interviews.
Data Analysis
The research questions, responses to the surveys, the interview rubric, the
observational template, and the document review form provided the structure for
analyzing the data. Results were analyzed using both inferential and descriptive
statistics. It was anticipated that data from the surveys would reveal themes and
concepts that could be used to gather more in-depth information during the inter
view process. The researcher expected data from the interview sessions to provide
specific input related to perceptions of the teacher evaluation process and site-
specific practices that have enhanced teacher practice. The information from the
surveys and interviews was compared and contrasted with the information gathered
via direct observations. The findings from the results provided insight into the
practices and elements of the teacher evaluation process that were significant for
the enhancement of teacher practice (Figure 1). This analysis demonstrated how
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research practices can be incorporated into the evaluation process to precipitate
improved teacher practice.
No
effectiveness is
perceived
Some
effectiveness is
perceived
Moderate
effectiveness is
perceived
Effectiveness is
perceived
The evaluation
process is believed
not to impact
teaching practices
AND
Staff members are
not satisfied with
the evaluation
process
AND
There is no docu
mented evidence
that supports the
evaluation process
is being utilized to
support improved
teacher practice
The evaluation
process is believed
to have limited
impact on teaching
practices
OR
Some staff mem
bers are satisfied
with the evaluation
process
OR
There is limited
documented evi
dence that supports
the evaluation
process is being
utilized to support
improved teacher
practice
The evaluation
process is believed
to impact teaching
practices
OR
Most staff mem
bers are satisfied
with the evaluation
process
OR
There is docu
mented evidence
that supports the
evaluation process
is being utilized to
support improved
teacher practice
The evaluation
process is be
lieved to posi
tively impact
teaching practices
AND
Staff members are
satisfied with the
evaluation pro
cess
AND
There is docu
mented evidence
that supports the
evaluation pro
cess is being
utilized to support
improved teacher
practice
Figure 1. Rubric of effectiveness.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the data findings and provides an analysis and inter
pretation of the results in context of the research questions presented. Quantitative
findings of the teacher survey and qualitative analysis from the teacher and admin
istrative interviews are interpreted to determine whether the teacher evaluation is an
effective tool that, along with alternative strategies and processes found within the
school site, can be used within the evaluation process to improve teacher practice.
The significant themes found within this study emerged through predomi
nately qualitative and some quantitative techniques. Instruments utilizing these
techniques were (a) detailed interviews with district administrators, site adminis
trators, and site teachers, (b) a survey administered to all site teachers, (c) document
review, (d) observation, and (e) a review of district policies and procedures for
teacher evaluation. These instruments were used to answer the four research ques
tions:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher evalua
tion?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
As analysis of each of the research questions was expounded, themes and
trends were emphasized. The framework for analysis presented in chapter 3 guided
the researcher in disaggregating and interpreting the data.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The first research question addressed four subfactors: (a) overview of state
policy and law as used in the district, (b) district policy and procedures for teacher
evaluation, (c) district approaches to teacher improvement and their relationship to
teacher evaluation, (d) district data about teacher performance and its use. The
second research question generated two subquestions:
1. To what extent has the district teacher evaluation policy been carried out
at the school level?
2. How do the district, school, and individual teacher hold each other ac
countable?
The third research question generated two subquestions:
1. What is the nature of the school’s leadership?
2. What are items of influence that have shaped the school’s teacher
evaluation practice?
The fourth research question generated asked five subquestions:
1. What are the administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the teacher
evaluation process?
2. Is there evidence of changes in teacher practice emanating from the
evaluation process?
3. To what degree are other school efforts improving teacher practices?
4. What is the effectiveness of resources used to implement teacher evalua
tion?
5. What are the consequences for perceived “weak” and “strong” teachers?
The organization of data allowed for in-depth analysis of the district policy
and site implementation of the teacher evaluation process and included a significant
component in determining factors outside of the evaluation process that were
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perceived to enhance teacher practice. Thirty-five teachers completed the teacher
survey, 8 site teachers were interviewed, and one site administrator and two district
administrators were interviewed. Site and district documentation was reviewed to
substantiate and further investigate procedures and processes for teacher evaluation
and enhancement of teacher practice.
Research Question 1
The first research question addressed the district’s policy and strategy for
carrying out teacher evaluation. The following four factors were included in the
first research question: overview of state policy and laws, district policy and pro
cedures for teacher evaluation, district approaches to teacher improvement and their
relations to teacher evaluation, and district data about teacher performance and its
use. Instruments used for the analysis of this question were state and district
documents and artifacts, information gathered in the interviews, and applicable
items from the teacher survey.
State Legislation
The Stull Bill, Education Code §§ 44660-44665, attempted to “establish a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of certificated
personnel within each school district of the state”; it was established in 1971. Re
cently, federal and state legislation have increased the level of required account
ability for student achievement in public schools. NCLB (2002) and the Classroom
Instructional Improvement Act of 1988 require school districts and school sites to
achieve high levels of student achievement.
The Education Code restricts the use of standardized norm-referenced tests
in determining the effectiveness of teachers, while recent legislation was entirely
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
based upon formulas that extensively included standards-based and norm-
referenced testing data. To comply with legislation specific to teacher evaluation, a
summary evaluation of the teacher must be completed before the last day of teach
ing within a school year. However, the high-stakes data are not available to the
school sites until after the end of the school year. Therefore, the administration and
teachers are unable to use this information in making recommendations for further
professional growth. Bedrock’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources
noted the following about teacher evaluation and the Education Code:
Test scores and Education Code are not in sync to provide teachers feed
back with the scores from previous years in order to shape their own evalua
tion process and growth. Administrators work to do that to see how kids
progress. To comply with Ed. Code everything must be completed in June,
but really we don’t have enough information to talk student test score
outcomes before the evaluation cycle is up. We are not consistent because
of the state provisions and Ed Code. Ed. Code does not say that adminis
trators can’t have the conversation of test data strands and improvement.
The mandated timeline set forth in the law is unwavering and significantly
impacts the level to which an accurate evaluation of a teacher’s performance is
measured. Provisions within the Education Code provide districts guidelines that
ensure that deadlines are met and that an individual’s rights are protected through
due process. BUSD has three options for teacher evaluation that include the ad
ministrative evaluation method and two optional methods that include the
peer/partner and portfolio option. The alternative methods required a waiver from
the state because those who participate in either option are allowed to be evaluated
tri-annually. The timeline for the evaluation process is summarized in Figure 2.
The Assistant Superintendent recognized the strength of the Education Code
in her statement:
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Event Probationary
or Temporary:
Administrative
Option
Permanent:
Administrative
Option
Permanent:
Partner
Option,
Portfolio
Option
Permanent:
Administrative
Option, Manda
tory Peer Assis
tance Review
Evaluation
Cycle
Annual Biannual Triennial Annual
Figure 2. Timeline for the evaluation process.
A strength [of the Education Code] is that there is a timeline to adhere to.
One discipline problem and/or operational issue can take time away from
the administrator going into classroom. Because of the timeline, we have to
carve out time for doing formal observations.
According to the Assistant Superintendent, the formal evaluation process
supports site management in scheduling time to observe teachers and to provide
feedback to those on the administrative option at least twice prior to the end-of-year
summary evaluation. Consistent informal observations are also expected of the
administrative staff for all teachers. Teachers who choose the portfolio and partner
options for evaluation are to be informally observed by the administrator. For
many administrators, it is very difficult to find time to complete these tasks and to
facilitate the daily events at the site. Site administrators find the timeline to be
helpful in ensuring that the evaluation paperwork gets done on time. However, the
Boulder site administrator noted that the timeline also has its drawbacks:
The Stull is not effective. It is limiting in the way that the Stull Act has
been interpreted in our district. The timelines that have to be met are arti
ficially decided upon. Last year I had a teacher who wanted to do the port
folio option and mid-year she backed out, which means I had to fit in an
administrator option very quickly. I saw some things I was concerned about
regarding differentiation. I could not put her on an improvement plan.
Current legislation is a big concern as, during the off year, it’s “hands off.”
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Board Policy and Collective
Bargaining
The five-member elected Board of Education is responsible for ensuring
that all students within the district meet the growth targets. This group is account
able to the voting community for governing the district and for appointing the su
perintendent, who is in charge of the daily operations. The mission of the school
district is that BUSD is “committed to excellence in teaching and learning to
prepare all students to become creative, productive, responsible, and contributing
citizens” (BUSD, 2002). The Board-approved BUSD 2005 Strategic Plan drove
the goals and objectives of the school district and incorporated six “strategic direc
tions”: (a) Standards, Assessment and Accountability; (b) Teaching and Learning;
(c) Professional Development; (d) Connections and Communications; (e) Leader
ship, Governance and Finance; and (f) School Climate, Safety, and Facilities
(BUSD, 2002). These strategic directions targeted areas in which the district and
site work to ensure that individual school sites meet the established targets for
school achievement and success.
Along with the Strategic Plan, BUSD maintains a program for the evalua
tion and assessment of certificated personnel. The purpose of evaluation of BUSD
is described in its Board Policies and Administrative Regulations.
The purpose for this program of evaluation and assessment is the improve
ment of staff competence and thereby the improvement of the quality of
education of all students. 2) The program is a comprehensive one based
upon a District-wide statement of goals which directly reflect the District’s
philosophy of education. 3) This program of evaluation and assessment
applies to all certificated personnel and is based upon duties and responsi
bilities as delineated in the District’s certificated personnel position
descriptions. (BUSD, 1986, BP4106a)
Purpose of evaluation: The District recognizes that the major purpose of
certificated employee evaluation is to improve the educational program by
providing opportunity for staff growth and improvement. (AR4106a)
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The board policy and administrative regulations were developed to incorpo
rate what was negotiated by BUSD and Bedrock Teachers Association (BTA;
BUSD & BTA, 2000) representatives and mandated by the Education Code. The
board policy for BUSD was a three-page document, written 18 years ago, focusing
on the following areas: (a) purpose and scope; (b) position description; (c) criteria
for evaluation and assessment, evaluator-evaluatee relationship, general procedures
of evaluation and assessment; and (d) notification of employees (Bedrock Board
Policy, 1986). On the other hand, the Bedrock’s Administrative Regulations, a 10-
page document updated 10 years ago, provided a detailed description of the
evaluation process for this district. The subheadings of the regulations were (a)
system of evaluation and assessment, (b) position description, (c) criteria for
evaluation and assessment, and (d) professional growth.
BUSD and BTA negotiated areas related to evaluation. The district’s col
lective bargaining agreement included (a) General Procedures of Evaluation, (b)
Forms, (c) Timeline, (d) Personnel Files, (e) Complaints, (f) Critical Material from
Administrator, and (g) Grievability.
Emergency permit teachers, interns, nonpermanent standing teachers, and
first-year permanent teachers are formally evaluated by the principal annually.
Those teachers who are of permanent status and beyond the first year of the
evaluation cycle are evaluated biannually by the administrator. Those teachers who
have been permanent for at least 5 years, have received satisfactory ratings on their
previous evaluations, and have received approval from their administrator are
offered the opportunity to participate in a modified evaluation process by choosing
the portfolio model or partner model. The ability to use a portfolio or partner
model was subject to a state waiver of the biannual evaluation requirement (BUSD,
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2000). If a certificated employee receives a satisfactory standing on the end-of-
year evaluation form, the employee is evaluated every 3 years.
All teachers in Bedrock are required to prepare a grade-level or department
Plan for Professional Growth, while those being evaluated are also expected to
design an individual Plan for Professional Growth. Initially, the administrator
meets with all staff members to approve or modify the created professional growth
plans. For those who are evaluated through the administrative option, certificated
personnel must be observed twice, and written and oral feedback must be provided
to the teacher within 5 days and placed in the site file. At the end of the year a
summative conference is held in which a written Summary Evaluation is provided
to the teacher and a copy is placed in the site and district files. For those who par
ticipate in the portfolio and peer option, the administrator and teacher are required
to meet mid-year to determine and discuss the teacher’s progress in meeting the
professional growth plan. At the end of the year, these teachers submit their reflec
tions and student data to show growth; this material is used as information to pro
vide these teachers with a written Summary Evaluation and conference before the
material is placed into the personnel file.
The present teacher evaluation process was developed over a period of 5
years. The district administrator responsible for the implementation was the As
sistant Superintendent of Human Resources, who worked collaboratively with the
teachers union to ensure that the evaluation system would be well received and
understood by the collective bargaining members. A great deal of time, resources,
and thought went into the development of the evaluation process. Bedrock’s As
sistant Superintendent noted:
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I think because we spent so much time on the model developing forms,
piloting, and discussing it, people got impatient. I said we must keep
building capacity with schools. It took 5 years of piloting from start to
finish. BTA and the district field tested it in a number of schools and
dropped the language into the 1999-2000 contract. The pilot worked
because, along with the district, BTA had a collective interest in revising
our evaluation model. Many of those who were sitting there as teachers
later became principals, so they had already embraced the whole concept.
The teacher interview data clearly indicated that the time, effort, and col
laboration used to develop this process was effective. In questions 3-5 of the
survey (Table 6), the majority of teachers indicated that they were aware of,
understood, and agreed with the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation by
answering the survey questions in the affirmative. Ninety-four percent of the
teachers were aware of the policy and agreed with the goals and objectives of the
policy, and 97% stated that they understood the teacher evaluation process. Table 6
summarizes the survey data for responses to survey items 3-5 and 45.
The district took a collaborative approach in development of the teacher
evaluation process and procedures. Ongoing collaboration with union members
over the period of 5 years ensured that the language regarding evaluation that was
introduced in collective bargaining would be accepted by both teachers and admin
istrators. Bolman and Deal (1997) noted that, although negotiations seem to be a
political process, in reality they are a symbolic process, as evidenced by the well-
crafted rituals that must be followed to achieve success. As a result of this process,
an effective evaluation procedure was developed. The plan met the Education
Code requirements and satisfied the district and the union, as it included multiple
evaluation options to facilitate a collaborative component that ensured professional
growth. All teachers are aware that the process is not exclusively a negotiated
forum and that the Education Code dictates the necessity for the evaluation process.
It is evident that teachers see the evaluation process as a collaborative effort. One
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Summary o f Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 1
Item
Average
score
%
Affirmative3
3 .1 am aware of the district’s policy regarding
teacher evaluation. 2.676 94.1
4 .1 understand the district’s policy regarding
teacher evaluation 2.735 97.1
5 .1 agree with the goals and objectives of my
district’s policy on teacher evaluation. 2.471 94.1
45. The majority of school improvement efforts
at this school have been initiated by
the district and/or site administration. 1.971 85.7
“ Reflects the percentages of affirmative answers (scored either 2 or 3 on the 4-point
scale 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree).
teacher noted the following in describing how the evaluation process is
implemented:
It is by the book. Dates and deadlines are met, sometimes barely, but they
are met. We follow all steps. We do everything by the book.
Research Question 2
The second research question analyzed how the school site carried out
teacher evaluation. The following subquestions were asked:
1. To what extent has the district teacher evaluation policy been carried out
at the school level?
2. How do the district, school, and individual teacher hold each other
accountable?
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instruments used for the analysis of this question were school site documents and
artifacts, information gathered in the interviews, and applicable items from the
teacher survey.
District Policy Implemented at the
Site Level
District documentation regarding teacher evaluation forms, and site pro
duced information used by the administration and shared with evaluation candi
dates were provided for analysis. Teachers are provided evaluation timelines that
include the following areas with specific due dates, as shown in Figure 3.
General meeting held to review evaluation procedures and options 20 days
Part I of the Plan for Professional Growth (PPG) submitted by
teacher to administrator
30 days
Administrator and teacher meet to sign off Part I of the PPG 50 days
Completed PPG (Parts I and II) submitted by teacher to adminis
trator.
130 days
Administrator holds summary evaluation conference with teacher. 150 days
Figure 3. District timeline.
The principal also provides teachers being evaluated with a checklist that
includes the necessary forms and items: Plan for Professional Growth (PPG),
meeting dates and decisions on Portfolio or Partnership options, observation sign
up dates and times, required observed lessons and Explicit Direct Instruction
Lesson Plan and Reflection Sheet. With regard to the implementation of the
district policy on teacher evaluation, teachers provided the following responses:
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It has been pretty clear and forthright. I know my expectations very clearly.
The policy includes observation of my teaching at least two times a year.
We received something that our principal is looking for: whole group.
This was really nice because it can focus me on what she is looking for,
along with the standards, and how I am going to differentiate for all in a
whole group environment.
We know guidelines up front. I am doing the portfolio option. It is clear.
All guidelines and paperwork are given to us early in the school year so that
we can be oriented with it.
We know the dates and everything up front. Over 2 or 3 months we meet
with whatever administrator we are assigned.
The majority of site teachers were very clear about the timelines, expecta
tions, and process of evaluation. Although 94.1% of the teachers knew that there
were alternative forms of teacher evaluation, only 38.2% participated in either the
portfolio or partnership methods (Table 7). Two teachers who participated in the
interview chose the partner option, a third indicated why she chose not to partici
pate in the portfolio option:
Frankly, I am on my way out and I have heard from the girls who have done
portfolio that it is too much work. I like to use my energy in the classroom.
All interviewed teachers indicated that they appreciated having the infor
mation regarding the evaluation process given to them up front. The survey data
indicated a high level of agreement that the site administrators were carrying out
the implementation of the evaluation process, timely feedback was provided, and
there was perceived improved teacher performance with a high percentage (94.1%,
97.1%, and 94.1% of teachers responding in the positive for questions 6, 11, and
12, respectively, as shown in Table 7). Of all respondents, 97.1% were comfort
able with the administrative evaluation practice. One teacher was very approving
of the administrators’ ability to provide feedback:
For me it has been positive. At least with me, the administrator’s criticism
had been constructive. As long it is constructive for me, I can say, “I can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7
Summary o f Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 2
Item
Average
score
%
Affirmative3
6 .1 am satisfied that my site administrators are
carrying out the district’s policy on teacher
evaluation with integrity. 2.618 94.1
7. My administrator frequently observes my
classroom for the purpose of evaluation. 1.618 58.8
8. My administrator and I often discuss the
instructional strategies I use in my classroom. 1.735 64.7
9 .1 view my administrator’s implementation of the
teacher evaluation policies as an integral part
of my professional growth. 2.143 88.6
10. When my administrator visits my classroom,
he/she looks for things which we agreed upon
at a pre-conference. 2.147 74.5
11.1 receive timely feedback following my observations. 2.588 97.1
12. The teacher evaluation feedback assists me
improving my teacher practice. 2.343 94.1
13.1 am confident in my administrator’s ability
to evaluate my instructional practice. 2.529 97.1
14. There are alternative evaluation opportunities
(e.g., PAR, portfolio, etc.) available at my school. 2.618 94.1
15.1 have participated in an alternative evaluation
process before. 1.324 38.2
16.1 believe that my participation in the teacher
evaluation process at this school has led to
my professional growth. 2.176 88.2
“ Reflects the percentages of affirmative answers (scored either 2 or 3 on the 4-point
scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree).
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
work on this. How would you have me work on this?” I usually get con
structive comments, not just what is wrong but the way I can change it.
Teacher evaluation itself was acknowledged by the interviewees as a
process that was not only mandated but structured in a way in which all certificated
teaching employees are evaluated in a consistent manner. In delving into the
teacher interviews, a theme emerged regarding the effectiveness of the process.
One teacher described her experience with the evaluation process:
In terms of the final conversation, I have found her style in which she writes
down certain events that occur in the classroom so it will be an accurate
record of what occurred in the classroom, the environment, student
interaction, and what was said, very interesting. The analysis of it is very
subjective, not necessarily what I feel is productive.
Accountability at the School Site
The public view of education and educators has declined with regard to
their ability to trust schools to educate children. As a result, school sites and dis
tricts have become responsible for providing data indicating the effectiveness of
their programs (Wade, 2001). The NCLB requires schools to hire only teachers
who are considered under the federal guidelines to be “highly qualified.” Califor
nia’s Annual School Report Card provides detailed site information about the qual
ity and program effectiveness of the school to all stakeholders in the state. This
report card contains the following: community and school profile, school leader
ship, student achievement and testing, instruction programs, teacher evaluation and
staff development information, along with other data specific to the school site.
The state of California has become more aggressive in granting credentials
and requiring new teachers to participate in BTSA/Induction to clear their prelimi
nary teaching credentials. The teacher evaluation and PAR legislation was estab
lished to give rise to quality educators in the profession of teaching and student
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning. Accountability from the perspective of the district, site, and teachers
varies regarding the use and implementation of the teacher evaluation process. The
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources stated the following regarding the
teacher evaluation process in improving teacher practice:
There are timelines and procedures for utilization and completion of the
forms. Second, as far as board policy and administrative regulations go,
they will be adhered to. All employees are entitled to appropriate feedback
regarding their performance. That shouldn’t occur just at the time of the
evaluation but as an ongoing process with a summary evaluation document
to summarize formal and informal observations as well as the reflective
input. The ongoing process is supervisory and evaluative. If the issues are
part of California Standards for the Teaching Profession and need work,
then it is incumbent to provide appropriate feedback to help the instruction
of our students.
The Assistant Director of Human Resources noted the following regarding
evaluation and supervision tied to improvement of teacher practice and student
learning:
Evaluation is legalistic. It is lock step, even though we have improved on
the process. I would like to see more of a free-flowing process. I don’t
know how you get away from the legalistic thing because it does affect
employment and teachers do get nervous about evaluation of job perform
ance. Teachers need to know that the administrator is authentic and that
they just don’t sit behind the desk. They know what instruction is and they
know how kids learn. I am sure that is going on. The ongoing conversation
is tied to evaluation. Teachers have problems and need regrouping and
must have an improvement plan tied to evaluation. In supervision you will
not wait for something to happen before the evaluation process.
Recent legislation has placed a great deal of accountability on school site
administrators. The literature indicated that the quality of a teacher’s practice sig
nificantly impacts student achievement. In BUSD the teacher evaluation process is
based on the CSTP. Literature on improving teacher practice indicates that, in
order to be aware of the level at which a teacher is meeting these standards, formal
and informal visitations to the classroom should be used to substantiate feedback to
the teacher. Many of the teachers at Boulder (41.4% of those surveyed, Table 7,
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
item 7) indicated that the administrator had not consistently visited their classrooms
throughout the school year. The interviewed teachers indicated in their responses
that the principal carried out a limited number of informal visitations throughout
the year. Teachers and the principal noted that this is a substantial concern:
I would like having the administrator on site and in the classroom more
often, leaving little notes about what they see around the room, up on the
walls, what they see me doing, the kids doing, and little reminders about the
different practices. At the beginning of the year we get inspirational kinds
of things that go in the classroom, but it gets forgotten as we go along.
Administrators must allocate more time to be in the school. By conducting
casual walks and coming in to see teachers, administrators see a lot.
Informal “walk-throughs” are powerful. It is frustrating to try to get into
the rooms. Sometimes when I write notes, I get backlash from the teachers.
But if I see something, I need to comment. Supervision is the power out
side of the evaluation process. Then the observation can be used in
informal notes and can be used in summaries, only during observation year.
Accountability has significantly changed the role of the site administrator.
The role of supervisor has developed to include not only evaluation but other areas,
such as facilitator of professional development, data decision maker, and facilitator
of collaboration (Lashway, 2002; Wade, 2001). Administrators may perceive a
negative reaction by the teachers to the supervisory visitations. However, research
indicates the necessity for administrators to get out into the classrooms to see the
quality of teaching that is taking place and to facilitate consistent discussions re
garding effective instructional practices.
We have had workshops and in-services. Track changes make that difficult
if teachers miss meetings.
During evaluation, administrators request that you list activities you have
done or participated in to improve teaching practices. It does play a role in
evaluation. It gives feedback to the principal in what individuals have done.
Through documentation of leadership, faculty meetings, grade-level articu
lation, and other agendas, the school-wide PPG seems to be addressed more
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consistently than the specific goals of an individual. Although all teachers are
required to participate in the PPG process, only those who are being evaluated in
that specific year are held accountable. The school-wide PPG makes teachers more
accountable to focus their strategies, skills, and implementation toward meeting the
desired outcomes collaboratively. Faculty meetings, grade-level meetings, and
other workshops create structures in which teachers can enhance their practice and
collaborate. The site principal of the site explained the importance of the school-
wide PPG:
In the teacher evaluation process, the school-wide goal has been reflected in
the PPG. So, when running records was new, that was a goal for teachers to
assess students and make decisions based on assessments. At another time,
writing as a whole was a school-wide goal. Grade level prompts led to
district prompts that were tracked for the whole year. Currently, we have
taken a step back because we have had so many foci and so many school-
wide goals based on writing and reading assessments. Now the focus is on
developmental assets, so that we are sure not to just push for academics, but
we are doing it in a way that honors the students.
Only 64.7% of the teachers indicated that the administrator discussed in
structional strategies used in the classroom (survey item 8). Documentation review
indicated that the strategies and skills being developed in the school-wide PPG
were addressed often through staff development, bulletins, grade levels, or leader
ship. It is important to note that 88.6% of the teachers reported that the adminis
trator’s implementation of the evaluation policies was an integral part of their
professional development (survey item 9). With these findings, another theme
began to emerge regarding a conflict in the perception of feedback within the
evaluation process.
The responses to item 12 indicated that 94.1% of the teachers surveyed
agreed that feedback assists in improving their teaching practice. However, during
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the interview process, 6 of the 8 interviewees reflected the sentiments of one
teacher:
I have never had anything said about what I do that would cause me to
change. I know what my own failings are and I don’t need someone to
point them out to me.
A conflict was evident between the survey responses that stated that teach
ers valued administrative feedback versus the interview responses that indicated
that administrative feedback was not valued and therefore had no effect on their
teaching practices.
The teachers who were interviewed noted that, during the evaluation
process, they are required to provide reflective responses regarding their lessons,
teaching practices, and their achievement toward meeting the goals of the PPG.
This reflective practice allows the administrator to provide feedback to the teachers
in the form of the summary evaluation. However, the teachers did not perceive this
feedback being based on their own reflections to enhance their teaching practices.
In this process, teachers are required to become accountable for rationalizing their
teaching practices in the discussions held with the administrator. In addition, the
administrator provides commendation and recommendation for improvements.
However, many teachers indicated that they work diligently to improve their own
teaching practices, utilizing personal reflections instead of administrative feedback.
Implementation and accountability were described by the analysis in
Bolman and Deal’s (1997) human resources frame. It was clear in this framework
that the administrator should assure that teachers’ needs were met by providing
them the evaluation information early in the school year. Although those needs
were met for the teachers, it was clear in both survey and interview data that the
teachers in this study desired additional informal observations by the administrator.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part of this need has to do with developing positive relationships and esteem
through dialogue and discussions. Although school-wide collaboration took place
through the school-wide PPG focus, during monthly banking days (which included
one faculty and two grade-level meetings), staff development days (SB 1193), and
other site-supported release days and staff development activities, many teachers
expressed the opinion that the evaluation process had limited effect on their teach
ing practices.
Research Question 3
The third research question analyzed the factors that have shaped the school
level effort. This question included two factors: (a) the nature of school leader
ship, and (b) items of influence that shape the school’s teacher evaluation practice.
Instruments used for the analysis of this question were school site documents and
artifacts, information gathered in interviews, and responses to applicable items on
the teacher survey.
Nature o f School Site Leadership
Several structures were in place to involve teachers and staff in the
decision-making process at the school site. Boulder’s application for a Distin
guished School Award and their School Plan noted administrative, staff, and
parental involvement. According to the application, the School Site Council, Title
VII Advisory Committee, and School Improvement Plan Writing Committee
monitor student progress toward meeting the intended goals and make decisions
regarding the spending of site funds. Throughout the School Plan, those involved
in meeting and achieving stated goals and objectives included the three previously
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stated groups, along with the administrators, teacher specialists, curriculum
coaches, and teachers.
On a daily basis, the administrators tend to direct the majority of decisions
that affect the school site. At Boulder, many teachers and the principal indicated
that a leadership team was developed at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year
to support the decision-making process.
The principal’s advisory committee [leadership team] starts at grade-level
meetings for discussion and consensus. If it is something the principal is
responsible for, she will make the decision. We do have a school site
council that gives input before she makes the decision.
Now that we have a new leadership team, there is huge improvement. In
the past, the teachers had a great deal of power. It changed. Now that we
have leadership team, started last April, and we have a lot more power than
we first thought.
It was evident that the teachers wanted a voice in the decision-making
process. Many of them agreed that, in making instructional decisions, parents were
not knowledgeable enough and only tended to agree with what the administrator set
forth for decision.
Parent involvement, teacher representation, and administration are on
School Site Council. Leadership had set decisions in the years I been in it.
Parents are new and don’t have the knowledge base. The administration
tells them about something and asks, “Do you agree?” All say “Aye.” All
agree, but very few know what is going on. They see the programs and see
the improvement. We are hoping leadership is getting more involved in
making recommendations, which the principal can ignore or not ignore.
This form of decision making clearly indicates a top-down model, as it
relates to parents. Teachers are provided a stronger structure to give input in the
decision-making process. Rationale on behalf of the principal to include teachers
in the decision-making process came about through her yearly principal evaluation
in which teachers provided her feedback.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The perception came up last year that teachers wanted more say in decision
making. They stated I was being authoritative, so we went through a
process of creating a leadership team, or recreating a team to try to make
more decisions go through the team. I think currently there is more of a
shared sense of decision making. I don’t know how comfortable they are
with that yet. Some very much want to make decisions. Others want
decisions made for them. Leadership is having a tough time with that.
Ultimately, I still make the decisions. The structure is still not in
place for leadership to make decisions and stand behind them. Teachers on
the committee are having a tough time when they present a decision to the
staff and get feedback. They take it personally. I don’t know what can be
done about it. There are still some who are not happy, no matter who
makes the decisions.
I don’t think any structure we use would help. I think the staff as a
whole knows that everyone has the same goals and is going in the same
direction. If they have an opinion they have to say it without being fearful
that colleagues will judge them or put them down. There is a quiet group
who won’t say anything. Many talk outside of the meeting. They have
asked who came up with this idea, and the person may be sitting in the
room. We have teachers who are behind-the-scenes leaders. Some wield a
lot of power with staff members, but they do not want to be on the
leadership team because of the commitment after school or they are not
comfortable putting their ideas out there for 12 people to comment on.
Regarding satisfaction with the administration’s professional competence
and the teacher leadership roles at the site, 88.6% responded in the positive (Table
8). Four of the 35 teachers (12.4%) were not satisfied with the administrator’s and
instructional support staffs professional competence and leadership abilities.
However, a majority of the teachers agreed that, during the 2004-2005 school year,
they had more teacher input into the decision-making process, especially in the area
of staff development, which included the development of the school-wide PPG.
Leadership comes from all the voices in the school. I don’t want to say it is
just the administrator. We have a leadership team and ideas are brought to
them. When we have staff development days, ideas are brought to the table
and are given the time to be thought about. It does really feel like we are
working together.
I assume the administrator or the district makes the decisions. I do know
that our administrator, when we were deciding the school-wide goal, asked
if we would like to do something different. It was nice to have a voice in
what we were going to do, so I thought she reached out pretty well.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
Summary o f Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 3
Average %
Item score Affirmative3
15.1 have participated in an alternative evaluation
process before. 1.324 38.2
16.1 believe that my participation in the teacher
evaluation process at this school has led to
my professional growth. 2.176 88.2
17. The administration frequently observes my classroom. 1.118 23.5
18. Other instructional support staff (e.g., coaches,
counselors, etc.) frequently observed my classroom. 1.059 26.5
19.1 receive meaningful feedback regarding my
teaching following an observation. 2.000 76.5
20.1 have discussions with administrators
regarding my teaching. 1.912 74.3
21.1 have discussions with instructional support
staff (not including site administrators) regarding
my teaching. 1.657 60.0
22.1 see the administration’s supervision of instruction
as non-evaluative and separate from formal
evaluation processes. 1.706 58.8
23.1 am aware of the specific things that administrators
look for when visiting my classroom. 1.943 68.6
24.1 am confident in my administration’s ability to
monitor my instructional practice. 2.286 94.3
25.1 believe that my administration’s supervision of
instruction improves my instructional practice. 1.943 77.1
26. I believe that other instructional support staff’s
supervision of instruction improves my
instructional practice. 1.700 65.7
27.1 have multiple opportunities throughout the year
to participate in professional development activities. 2.314 97.1
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8 (continued)
Average %
Item score Affirmative3
28. Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on
instructional matters on a regular basis. 2.657 100.0
29.1 collaborate with others on instructional matters
on a regular basis. 2.514 91.4
30.1 am aware of an official professional development
plan that has been prepared to share with the district
and school community at large. 2.147 82.4
31.1 have a clear understanding of the professional
development goals for my school. 2.543 97.1
32. Teachers have an active role in developing
professional development goals and objectives. 2.086 77.1
33.1 am comfortable going to my school
administrators for support. 2.543 91.4
34.1 am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 2.600 100.0
35.1 believe in the goals and objectives of this school. 2.486 100.0
36. The values of this school are consistent
with my own values. 2.429 97.1
37. The goals and objectives of this school have
contributed to our school’s improvement. 2.486 94.3
38.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and teaching ability of my teaching colleagues. 2.257 94.3
39.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of the administration. 2.400 88.6
40.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of the instructional support
staff (e.g., coaches, counselors, etc.). 2.300 91.4
41.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of teachers’ leadership roles
at this school. 2.229 88.6
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8 (continued)
Item
Average
score
%
Affirmative3
42. Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and
instruction impact our school’s ability to improve. 2.257 88.6
43. Teachers have an active role in making
decisions for the school. 2.229 88.6
44. Teachers have initiated efforts towards
school improvement. 2.206 85.3
45. The majority of school improvement efforts
at this school have been initiated by the district
and/or site administration. 1.971 85.7
46.1 believe that all students can learn. 2.771 100.0
47. When I really try, I can get through to most students. 2.714 100.0
48. If a student masters a new concept quickly,
this might be because I knew necessary steps
in teaching that concept. 2.471 97.1
49. When a student is having difficulty with an
assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to
his/her level. 2.457 97.1
50. When the grades/proficiency levels of my
students improve, it is usually because I used
my effective teaching approaches. 2.429 94.3
51.1 believe that all students can achieve at high levels. 2.229 74.3
52. The influence of a student’s home environment
can be overcome by good teaching. 2.043 71.4
“ Reflects the percentages of affirmative answers (scored either 2 or 3 on the 4-point
scale 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree).
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The teachers recognized that they have begun to have a voice in the decisions re
garding professional development. However, it was clearly stated that
everyone understood that the ultimately decisions were made by the site adminis
trator.
Literally, the principal is in charge as far as that goes, but she wants a lot of
input into areas that affect the school. Staffing decisions is an area where
we don’t have input.
As the principal indicated, although she began to look at the staff for input,
she was ultimately responsible for the decisions made at the school site. Eighty-
eight percent of the teachers agreed that teachers had an active role in making site
decisions. Still, the principal noted that there are some barriers to having more
teachers’ input on the decision making process:
Ultimately, I do make the decisions. A challenge for year round calendar
schools is that the staff development days are at the beginning of the year.
We don’t have the luxury to have a day within the school year for all
teachers to attend at the same time. So it has to be substitute release, after
school or banking time. Not a lot of options for how. As far as what gets
done, it is what the teachers are interested in, what the test data say, and
what the areas are that we are close to the margin with student achievement.
If it is an area that needs a focus, I will make an executive decision: thou
shalt.
The document and interview data were substantiated by the survey data
(Table 8). All of the teachers were aware of and supported the goals and objectives
of the school site; 97.1% indicated that the goals and objectives were consistent
with their personal values, and 94.3% agreed that the goals and objectives contrib
uted to school improvement. Although 97.1% claimed that they clearly understood
the professional development goals for the school, 17.6% were not aware of the
School Plan, which is the official document prepared by the site and shared with
the district.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As many of the teachers indicated in their interviews, since the leadership
team was recently established, it had not yet been implemented to its full potential.
Of the teachers surveyed, 77.1% agreed that the staff had an active role in devel
oping professional development goals and objectives.
What Influences Shaped the Site’ s
Teacher Evaluation Practice
The practice of teacher evaluation has been shaped by school improvement
efforts, teacher supervision, school culture, and teacher efficacy. These factors
have been found in literature research to affect teacher quality. All teachers at
Boulder were “highly qualified” and therefore compliant to NCLB. The average
range of teaching experience at this site was 6-10 years and the average number of
years at this site was also 6-10 years.
Boulder is located in an area of families who are considered to be of low
socioeconomic status. As the school data indicated, these students came from sig
nificantly ethnically and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In light of the height
ened accountability and challenging factors found within the school site, focus in
various nonevaluative areas had an impact on school improvement and application
within the evaluation process.
Professional Development
Boulder Elementary School utilizes ongoing professional development op
portunities that link instructional practice to student learning and achievement.
Some of the professional development opportunities provided to the teachers are
Write from the Beginning, Thinking Maps, Running Records, 40 Developmental
Assets, DataWorks Educational Research, and school state testing data review.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey data indicated that 97.1% of the teachers participated in professional devel
opment opportunities. Rationale for determining the focus of professional devel
opment was expressed by one teacher:
I think when we recognized an area such as language arts where the scores
weren’t improving, we would have a number of meetings grade level or
school-wide that would deal with those issues. We would have workshops
or in-services to deal with those issues, taking last year’s scores and noting
low areas, and what could we do to improve scores.
Many of the decisions that teachers help to make using data have led to the
development and facilitation of the school-wide PPG and individual choices for
improvement efforts during their evaluation year. The principal expressed that pro
fessional development opportunities supported teachers in providing tools that
utilize to ensure that students’ needs were addressed:
Teachers collaborate every month. Two meetings are grade level and one is
dedicated to writing. Teachers collaborate on the genre and the writing
prompts. We have used Write From the Beginning. We have been trained
in it. Teachers have been given as many tools as possible and then are
given the freedom to use what they have rather than one program school-
wide. We put materials in the hands of teachers and have them make
decisions based on their students, knowledge, and instinct. I ask them,
“What do you need?”
Several teachers provided insight as to how professional development op
portunities have affected their teaching.
I like the standards. I like knowing what we are focusing on. The English
Language Development standards have expectations for all students and
make sure every student succeeds.
We do have Write From the Beginning (WFTB) and guided reading. The
programs do not improve the students’ writing; the actual focus on writing
is what is working. It is the practice. If you do something more, that will
help. Kids are seeing that we are looking at the expectations.
Including more sheltering strategies, as a general procedure, not just using it
for your English Language Learner kids. Assets building, it is nice to have
a name to it, but we already do it, we are just fine timing it.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I think all our discussions, whether with the administrator or at grade level,
are geared to current processes. We have discussion and sometimes a little
assignment. There is not a lot of feedback on what we turn in. Coming
from a school that is very large, I understand why you wouldn’t get indivi
dual feedback. I don’t think it is effective, but it is a good exercise.
It was clear that the staff was not consistent in using the practices that were
introduced during staff and professional development opportunities within the
classrooms. Both administrator and teachers indicated that, although professional
development provided tools for teachers, most of the strategies within the class
room were determined directly by the teacher. Two teachers expressed that they
developed as professionals outside of the school site rather than through school and
district professional development opportunities.
I read professional articles, books, and use the internet. Unfortunately, we
older ones get frustrated and lost. I would rather sit and create my own
resources.
I have done two things that changed me: National Board and Masters. In
both cases, you videotape yourself. If you want a real picture of yourself,
that is what needs to be done, and videotape yourself more than once. It
was a very valuable tool to take a look at what you say and do. The video
taping is one step up from the partner evaluation option, but I am super
critical of myself. All teachers should do this.
Collaboration
At Boulder, specific time was provided for teachers to collaborate on an on
going basis. Weekly banking days were organized in a manner in which grade
level members met twice a month and staff meetings occurred monthly. At least
twice a year there were cross-grade-level discussions that occurred to ensure teach
ers were working toward the standards and common goals. Many of those inter
viewed expressed that collaboration experiences were not just limited to banking
days.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I collaborate at lunch with the fifth-grade teachers, and on Thursday
banking days and those can be either grade level or cross grade level to
discuss what each grade wants the other to work on.
I try to work closely with my second-grade colleagues at the other end of
the campus. We have grade-level meetings and staff meetings. I like the
weekly bulletin that shares a great deal of information, not just schedules,
especially the affirmations and reflective things we can do.
I usually collaborate just with other fifth-grade teachers. We are discussing
doing a response to literature, we are going over the lesson we use to teach
this, and we talk over the parts that they tried and are changing and parts I
worked on to make improvements to whatever lesson we already developed.
Because collaboration was important to this school site, funds are used to
provide teachers with time to work among grade-level teachers on instruction.
Collaboration is embedded into the evaluation process, especially in the area of the
school-wide PPG. Teachers use collaboration time to enhance their teaching prac
tices, skills, and strategies that are expected to be observed within the structure of
formal and informal observations. The principal noted,
We release the teachers and give them time to collaborate in grade levels in
teams. Every trimester they have either an extra half day or a full day to
meet as a grade level, based on an instructional planning agenda.
All of the teachers surveyed agreed that they were encouraged to collabo
rate with others for the purpose of instructional matters. However, only 91.4%
responded that they actually collaborated on a regular basis.
We have a special time to sit with the principal to go over lessons. I think
that they are going to different classes. I think they are also learning by
observing other classrooms. They are learning other strategies and better
techniques. When they are observing us they can provide feedback to help
us.
Partnership and collaboration will not work out if you don’t all have part
ners. Some teachers cross grade levels; I personally like the same grade
level. I really don’t want to do another grade level. Sixth grade is my heart
and soul, and if I am going to improve, I think someone at my grade level
will help me more.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mentoring
In terms of mentorship, Boulder teachers did not indicate that there were
strong mentorship programs available to the teachers. During the interview process
one teacher mentioned her positive experiences regarding the BTSA program:
I like watching and observing other teachers—which we don’t do. I like to
go to other schools. I want to know what they are doing. When I was going
through my BTSA training, I watched and talked to other teachers about
lessons and assessments. I had a mentor who helped me by providing
feedback. She observed me, I observed her, and this helped me out.
This teacher clearly believed that, while she was in the BTSA program, she
was supported and had opportunities to improve on her teaching practice. Another
teacher related a different experience with the mentoring process. Her evaluation
partner had been a trained mentor who provided support to new teachers in the
BTSA program. The strategies that this individual used supported enhancement of
teacher practice through providing feedback to the partner, who would be reflecting
on instructional improvement for her summary evaluation. The strategies and skills
that this person developed in providing observational feedback was regarded as a
benefit.
My partner is a mentor. He observed me like he was observing someone for
the mentor program. I think the tape recorder would be a valuable tool. He
recorded everything that was said and done and then he went back and said,
“This is your practice at work. This is what we are looking for.” It was
more far more extensive, in his case, because he did the mentor training. I
would love to do the training. I just wouldn’t want to be a mentor teacher.
This teacher went on to question whether this training might benefit administrators
as well.
Supervision
Supervision at a school site entails individuals beyond the principal. At
Boulder, the majority of teachers (91.4%) were comfortable in going to the site
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
administrator for support (Table 8). The interviewees described an administrator
who was willing to provide support and accessible but noted that visits to the class
rooms seemed to be lacking.
It is easy here to talk to the teachers on special assignment, principal, or
assistant principal. It is an open door policy. You can standby the office
door and, if they are busy, you go away. If they are not busy, you say,
“Excuse me” and go in and deal with the situation.
I find the administrator has an open door policy. I will either email or peek
into her office and talk to her quickly. I feel like someone is always there.
We have an open door policy and can get an appointment to talk about areas
needing improvement. We can have the principal come in to watch a lesson
if we ask her. But if I had not done it, she would not have known what was
going on in my classroom. I am sad to see the administrative people out of
the school too many days, attending meetings. They are really not here
enough to have the leisure time to walk around the classrooms. This comes
from the top, the district.
As stated within the framework of a previous question, it is apparent that
support staff and especially the administrator struggled to make it into the class
rooms. Observations, formal and informal, are essential to the evaluation process
to determine the effectiveness of teacher practice. However, the majority of teach
ers agreed that there was too much going on at the school site that made it difficult
for the principal to supervise effectively.
Outside evaluation, there is very little feedback. She always has good
intentions to get around to classrooms. Last year we had journals and the
administrator would write a note and we would respond. This lasted 1
month. There was too much going on.
The lack of observations is not just limited to the administrator; 73.5% of
the teachers surveyed stated that the support staff also had difficulty in visiting the
classrooms to support instruction (Table 8). Slightly less than half the teachers
surveyed (41.2%) indicated that they regarded the administrator’s supervision of
instruction as nonevaluative and separate from the evaluation process. Most
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(71.1%) agreed that the administration’s supervision of instruction improved in
structional practices, and 65.7% agreed that the instructional support staffs super
vision improved instruction.
School Culture
School culture has a great impact on teacher retention and teacher per
formance. According to the Boulder School Report Card, the school encourages all
students to develop academically, socially, and emotionally. High expectations
were set for all students. The School Plan sets forth high expectations for the
school site, teachers, student, and parents in the goals and objectives leading to
student achievement.
The mission of Boulder Elementary School is to provide a safe environment
in which to foster life-long learners who can create a variety of individual
and collaborative product which reflect originality, organization, quality,
and the use of technology. (Boulder school’s mission statement)
The climate and culture of a school site are strong indicators of how and
why teachers decide what to do regarding instructional practices. A school site that
has common goals and objectives tends to focus on teacher practice (Darling-
Hammond, 1999). The ultimate goal of the evaluation process is to improve
teacher practice to positively affect student achievement.
All teachers who were surveyed agreed that all children can learn and that,
if the teachers try, they can get through to most students. All 8 teachers who were
interviewed agreed that student success and achievement are primary. Two teach
ers provided insight into the importance of children:
Children are absolutely celebrated here. Children are number one. We are
compassionate teachers.
I think the staff and administrators are here for the students. There are so
many programs from the pre-school, off-track intervention, and academy
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs; nothing is overlooked. All these things make it a successful
school. I feel like we are all in it together. “Roll up your sleeves and go to
work!” It is not about me, it is what can I do for my students.
Another aspect of school culture is that teachers respect other teachers’
teaching abilities. The teacher survey indicated that 94.3% were satisfied with the
professional competence and teaching ability of their colleagues (Table 8). Those
who were interviewed provided positive responses that reflected a combined effort
as to why the school was successful.
People will talk to each other. I talk to the upper grade teachers. They get
my kids, I get their kids. The issues are similar. I can go in and talk to
another teacher. I can complain or I can ask, “How did you do this? I want
to use this in my classroom.” This is the best thing going for us. No matter
who comes in or leaves, we get people who you can talk to. They will fuss
at you if they don’t understand something, or if they think you’re screwing
up, and they will ask questions on how they can do something better.
We have good teachers. They are well-trained, organized, knowledgeable,
and dedicated teachers. They care for their students and work harder
because they care.
Only one teacher had a concern for the fixture:
The quality of the teachers has changed. There area a few left from the old
days. I am not saying this because I am older. The new teachers coming in
don’t have the investment and same kind of vocational strengths that the
older teachers had. We have a lot more transience in teachers, which affects
the program, especially in primary. I think there is a big difference, and I
think we will see the effects of that.
However, the principal, who was initially placed at this site as the assistant
principal, had a similar perception about the teachers at the school site as that held
by the majority of teachers. She indicated that the data did not depict, at that time,
the same successes that had occurred when she had been principal. The rationale
that she provided was that the school’s success was not due to what she had ac
complished as principal, but instead was due to the quality and dedication of the
teaching staff and their ability to look at data and make appropriate instructional
decisions.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When the first API scores came out schools were given money rewards and
we were not. Because of that, it took me, the teachers, and prior principal
aback because we knew we were a good school. We knew that we had
talented teachers and staff and had to tell them we didn’t make it. Because
of that, everyone had to re-examine what they were doing and recommit to
what they were doing as a challenge. This is a very dedicated staff. Their
hearts are in the right place. They work on behalf of the students. Typic
ally, they have high expectations for students. Some struggle more than
others, but as the students succeed and raise the bar, the students give more
reason to raise the bar higher.
To raise the bar, administrators and teachers utilize professional develop
ment. At one point, a negative outcome of professional development came about
when the school hired DataWorks to focus the school in improving teaching prac
tices. Two teachers noted:
DataWorks came in at the end of the year. It was not a good time. They
came back with a report that insulted us. The principal used this as a tool to
gear our lessons. What they told us we had to imbed into our evaluation.
The explicit lesson planning takes too much time.
This was a 5-year program data analysis. It was a disaster, demoralizing,
and yet we still became a Distinguished School.
As a reflection, the principal indicated that this form of professional devel
opment was not as effective as she had hoped and may have had a negative effect
on the staffs commitment to continuing to analyze and use data to improve teach
ing practices.
DataWorks evaluates time on task and learning. Even though it did not go
anywhere, people took it personally. If we don’t look at developing teach
ing practices, we will hit the academic wall soon. We may be getting there.
A negative event will make us re-look at our practice.
In spite of the negative experiences for the teachers and site administrator
with this type of professional development activity, the school found academic
success. Teacher efficacy and a strong climate and culture that embrace high ex
pectations for all students have driven the staff to actively collaborate within the
school day and outside of the work day to improve their teaching practices. The
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers at Boulder Elementary School share a number of common beliefs and
values; therefore, they are able to share all the successes that contribute to a posi
tive environment.
Celebration of successes was something that was valued at the school site.
Boulder made an effort to focus on celebrating their accomplishments, while con
tinuing to work to make strides to meet all of their students’ needs.
We are trying to celebrate little things and not just the big things, like being
kind to each other.
When we got Distinguished School, we said, “So there!” We deal with
second language, low income, and low scores. Not only did we get
Distinguished School for Title I, but we got Distinguished School. It was
nice to have it confirm what we knew: that our kids were just good kids.
That was fun winning something! The tougher part is staying there. You
don’t want it to be a peak. We are proud we have done it, but also aware we
are now flying above the radar and we need to do it again.
Teacher Efficacy
Boulder has a number of veteran teachers. Many of these teachers have a
strong sense of efficacy. In supporting student achievement, 97.1% agreed that
their instruction supported student learning; 94.3% agreed that, when a student’s
proficiency level increased, it was due to their instructional practices (Table 8).
When asked in the interviews whether they were valued at the school site, all indi
cated that they were valued members in the school community. Teachers who feel
valued are more apt to become participating members of the culture. As a member
of the community, these teachers strive to improve their practice and during the
evaluation process and they strive to show their best practices when being ob
served. Although most teachers (94.3%) agreed that their practice makes a differ
ence in student achievement (item 50), 2 teachers further expressed during the
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interview that they believed that their value as teachers beyond the school site was
less important to society at large.
I feel like a cog in a wheel. Not because of the school site. This is a bigger
issue. I think die district is interested in what looks good on paper. If there
are good numbers, I am valued; bad, I am not. I feel that we are going for
what looks good rather than celebrating the process of making children
better human beings. We made a step toward that at the beginning of the
school year by using asset building. Looking back on 34 years, things come
and go. I lost Social Security from the state because I am a teacher. Our
society does not place much value on teachers. It is not an issue of money,
it is an issue of what we value. The things you can see and touch are what
are most valued.
Overall teachers are not valued. Professionally what we value in this
country is comparable to money. We are not paid well. Teachers don’t act
professionally. As teachers, we need to do more in our profession to show
we deserve greater respect. It is our fault for not thinking of strategies to
show them how important we are. The public does not know how hard we
work. They hear negative things about public schools. I think public
school teachers are more prepared than they are at private schools.
This discrepancy between the teachers’ perceptions of their value in the
school community and among society at large may be a result of the increased
demands for accountability by the state and federal governments. However, teach
ers feel that their value comes from a direct impact on student achievement and
their contributions that lead to their students’ success.
Shaping school efforts included the nature of site leadership and other influ
ences that shape the teacher evaluation practice. In analyzing these areas using
Bolman and Deal’s four frames, it was clear that, at the site level, the human re
source frame was the dominant frame. Although both the School Site Council and
the Leadership Team are very structural in theory, setting objectives and coordi
nating resources, the facilitated collaboration within the process gathers individuals
and encourages active participation. These groups, as well as other school-wide
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collaborative efforts, demonstrate a shared sense of direction and commitment by
the staff. These themes are indications of the human resource frame.
Professional development at Boulder focuses on training and job enrich
ment that allow for autonomy as well as participation. Collaboration and the lim
ited mentoring that occurs at the school site indicate a sense of team. Teachers
collaborate with colleagues when issues and questions arise regarding not only
teacher practice but also student academic and emotional needs. Although there
were limited classroom visitations, teachers expressed the opinion that the admin
istrator was open to support if they initiated the discussion. Many of the teachers
relied on the principal’s ability to balance their human needs with the formal role of
the administrator.
The teachers at Boulder indicated the importance of relationships. These
strong relationships were between principal and teacher, teacher and teacher, stu
dent and teacher, and teacher and parents. Relationship building is a clear indicator
of the human resource frame at work. At the site level, the perception of teacher
efficacy was high, although outside of the school teachers believed that the strong
political frame left them with a feeling of limited value.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question analyzed how effective the teacher evaluation
process was at the school site level. Five subquestions were as follows:
1. What are the administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the teacher
evaluation process?
2. Is there evidence of changes in the teacher practice emanating from the
evaluation process?
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. To what degree are other school efforts improving teacher practices?
4. What is the effectiveness of resources used to implement teacher
evaluation?
5. What are the consequences for perceived “weak” and “strong” teachers?
Instruments used for the analysis of this question were school site documents and
artifacts, information gathered in the interviews, and responses to applicable items
from the teacher survey.
Teacher and Administrator
Perceptions o f the Teacher
Evaluation Process
An analysis of the responses provided by the teachers indicated that they
were aligned to the district’s expectation of the evaluation process and procedures
and that they were satisfied with implementation, although a majority of the teach
ers continued to participate in the administrative option rather than the partner or
portfolio option. None of the teachers interviewed participated in the portfolio
option; many noted that it took too much work and time. Two were currently par
ticipating in the partner option and believed that, with the right partner, account
ability for the improvement of teacher practice was likely to take place. One of
these teachers indicated during her interview that, had she not been paired with a
teacher who had been a mentor in the past, she would have experienced something
different. As far as the evaluation process as a tool for the improvement of teacher
practice, many teachers indicated how the evaluation process affected classroom
practice:
On a daily basis, not very much. Good teaching is good teaching. I am
doing it everyday. Daily, you can’t do the preparation for every lesson the
way you prepare for the observed lesson. I think that is known.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Less and less, as I taught more. I would say it has very little effect on how I
teach.
I try to be as specific as possible with my teaching, even without the
process.
Not just as a veteran, but having a number of acceptable evaluations, I think
they should lengthen the time between evaluations. I feel if they are posi
tive evaluations, you have earned it. Informal observations can continue.
After teaching for a number of years, informal evaluations are just as help
ful. Those just getting started may need more formal support.
I would increase the number of times that an administrator or partner would
come into the classroom. Twice or three times does not give a teacher
being “Stulled” enough information or accurate information to reflect how
they are teaching and what they are teaching.
Only one teacher responded that the post-observation discussions and rec
ommendations had significantly impacted how she teaches:
They affect mine a lot. I talk to her and she tells me what I was strong in
and what areas I need to work on. It helps me to get new ideas.
On the other hand, the survey data summarized in Table 9 indicates that a
high percentage of teachers (88.2%) agreed that the teacher evaluation process led
to professional growth. The documents associated with the survey were aligned
with the focus and development of teachers. The PPG focuses teachers to develop
specific teaching areas. Teachers are required to determine an area of development,
provide student samples that would indicate quality of teaching practices, and
reflect upon the teaching and student learning that took place throughout the year.
The principal concurred with the development of the PPG as a tool for supporting
teachers in enhancing their teaching practice; however, she questioned the effec
tiveness of the evaluation process.
One PPG reflects the individual to determine where they want to grow and
develop professionally. It is rare when I have to dictate a goal as an
administrator. Usually, their goals are right on and where I would like to
see them grow as well. I have tried to be broken record on pushing them
farther in their practice. At one point I kept seeing running records as a
goal. Now I ask them, “What do you do with the results in your
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9
Summary o f Data From Teacher Survey: Research Question 4
Average %
Item score Affirmative®
5 .1 agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation. 2.471 94.1
6 .1 am satisfied that my site administrators are
carrying out the district’s policy on teacher
evaluation with integrity. 2.618 94.1
7. My administrator frequently observes my classroom
for the purpose of evaluation. 1.618 58.8
8. My administrator and I often discuss the
instructional strategies I use in my classroom. 1.735 64.7
9 .1 view my administrator’s implementation of the
teacher evaluation policies as an integral part of
my professional growth. 2.143 88.6
10. When my administrator visits my classroom,
he/she looks for things which we agreed upon
at a pre-conference. 2.147 74.5
11.1 receive timely feedback following my observations. 2.588 97.1
12. The teacher evaluation feedback assists me
improving my teacher practice. 2.343 94.1
13.1 am confident in my administrator’s ability
to evaluate my instructional practice. 2.529 97.1
14. There are alternative evaluation opportunities
(e.g., PAR, portfolio, etc.) available at my school. 2.618 94.1
15.1 have participated in an alternative evaluation
process before. 1.324 38.2
16.1 believe that my participation in the teacher
evaluation process at this school has led to
my professional growth. 2.176 88.2
39.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of the administration. 2.400 88.6
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9 {continued)
Item
Average
score
%
Affirmative3
40.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of the instructional support
staff (e.g., coaches, counselors, etc.). 2.300 91.4
41.1 am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of teacher leadership roles
at this school. 2.229 88.6
a Reflects the percentages of affirmative answers (scored either 2 or 3 on the 4-point
scale 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree).
classroom?” This is not always the most effective tool. It is dependent on
how reflective the teacher is.
Evidence o f Changes in Teacher
Practice Emanating From the
Evaluation Process
Bedrock’s board policy states the rationale for the evaluation process is to
improve the quality of education by improving staff competence. This process was
noted to be continuous throughout the school year. Part I of the PPG was com
pleted by teachers during the first 30 days of the school year, when they set the
goal, desired outcomes, strategies, and data that would be collected to support the
outcome results. Between day 50 and day 130 of the school year the teachers par
ticipated in either the administrative, portfolio, or partner options of professional
development and feedback. All teachers within the school site were required to
participate in staff development, which focused on the school-wide PPG. Bed
rock’s Assistant Director of Human Resources noted that, in supporting the goal of
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation, the teacher is an important component of developing competent educa
tors.
I would like to see a continuation of tying in what teachers perceive as
being their strengths and deltas to a more consistent and unified practice of
moving that into the professional development realm and going ahead and
building on that.
Teacher reflection was an important component of the evaluation process.
Part II of the PPG required the teachers to provide input into the process by pro
viding student data/results that supported the desired outcome, reflection on their
initial plan, and specific plans for future professional growth.
Throughout the evaluation process, feedback was provided to those being
evaluated at least twice. Those teachers in the district whose teaching practices the
administrator was concerned about were placed on an improvement plan. This plan
indicated the areas of concern, specific recommendations for improvement, assis
tance to be provided, and follow-up meeting dates. Both the Assistant Superinten
dent and the Assistant Director of Human Resources stated in their interviews that
the goal of the district is to hire and retain the best possible educational staff. Once
a teacher is “permanent,” evaluation and supervision should be a blended process to
support the improvement of teacher practice.
Our mantra in Human Resources is to recruit the best in the profession.
Our Board says that, too. I know that I selected this person for all the high-
quality reasons needed to meet NCLB for our students and our profession.
In response to item 1, 94.1% of the teachers strongly agreed with the goals
and objectives of the district and the site administrator’s ability to carryout the dis
trict’s policy; 88.2% agreed that the evaluation process led to professional growth.
The Boulder teachers who were interviewed indicated that the professional devel
opment, feedback, and focus of instruction had improved their practices.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The feedback is very good. Of the three options, the administrative option
is much easier for me because of the timeline, but I would consider the
partner option. I think my relationship with a number of teachers here is
such that I could find someone who would be open to my critiques and
whom I value enough that I would know their critiques would be very
useful.
I use backwards mapping to make sure students learn the goal. I reflect
upon lesson at the end to say what worked, what didn’t work, so you can
improve your lessons.
We have personal goals for the process. I forced my partner into science.
We have done more science than we have done in the past.
School Efforts That Improve
Teacher Practice
The majority of school efforts were implemented to improve teacher prac
tice within the classroom. At Boulder, meeting agendas and minutes indicated that
collaboration was significantly embedded into the school efforts to improve teacher
practice. The interviewees indicated that, although the partner option is part of the
evaluation procedure, teachers work cooperatively outside of that particular
process.
In the partner option it is encouraged that there be multiple informal visits.
Two formal, but multiple informal. I see the partner option as collabora
tion. We were able to either plan alone or together. We planned the same
lesson together. It is an advantage to see another teacher present the same
lesson. There are similarities and differences, but they both have strengths
and there is not just one way to do something.
The partnership option has strength. I heard the portfolio is a lot more work
and was not fulfilling. I find the partnership eye opening. I see the other
ways as cut and dried: two observations, every other year. Our biggest
strength is collaboration at the grade level, which we do tremendously well.
We structure ourselves to plan, reflect, and tweak our lessons on weekends.
I like working with a peer who is intimately knowledgeable about the
curriculum, rather than an administrator who is hierarchically above me.
There already is a certain element of intimidation, even if we have worked
with these people for many years, to assess me rather than the actual
product.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Throughout the interviews, many of the teachers indicated that, when there
was a strong focus school-wide, from the district and site administration as well as
the teachers, all were active participants. In the 2004-2005 school year their
school-wide focus was affirmations. In all interviews, the focus of affirmations
was brought into conversation as a positive experience. Other teachers indicated
that, throughout the years, the site focused in other areas. The teachers indicated
that the past area of concentration had led to the individual teachers’ continued
practice within the classroom.
I like the focus of sticking with the standards. I like to reflect in my teach
ing for myself and what can I do to be more effective in my teaching.
I like using the directed lesson form for thinking it though. It is what good
teaching is about. You internalize it. You don’t consciously think you are
going to do this then, this now. The plan can’t be filled out everyday, but it
is reflective.
Cost Effectiveness o f Teacher
Evaluation
Time and effort on the part of the administrator and teacher were spent on
the evaluation process. Teachers were required to attend at least five meetings
outside of the classroom and other site meetings. They were also required to de
velop a PPG, write detailed lesson plans, and reflect on the year’s teaching
practices. Administrators, on the other hand, were required to facilitate all meet
ings with teachers who were being evaluated, observe at least twice, provide feed
back to all those who were participating in the administrative model, and write final
summaries at the end of the year. If the teaching practice of a teacher was unsatis
factory, then both administrator and teacher’s time was impacted.
Teachers indicated via survey (41.2%) and interviews that time manage
ment is difficult for the administrator (Table 9). Boulder had 27 teachers being
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluated, one principal, and a new assistant principal. Of the 27 teachers, 12 were
participating in the partner option and two in the portfolio option. This left 13
teachers to be evaluated by the administrative staff.
Concerns existed regarding the ability of the administrators to get into the
classroom for formal observations and informal visits. Only 58.8% agreed that the
administrator observed the classroom for the purpose of evaluation, and 23.5% re
ported that the administrator visited the classroom for any reason. Yet, many be
lieved that visitation by the administrator was essential.
For a school our size, there are just too many of them. We always have new
teachers. It is hard to fit everyone in.
True evaluation—this is something BTA would not like to hear—should not
be planned. I feel a principal should walk in many times, not just one or
two times, and it shouldn’t be announced. That is how I would know if a
teacher is genuinely doing a good job overall. I understand why they have
to assign time so they see exactly how you are doing. All good teachers
should be walked in on many times.
The strength the administrator can see is if the classroom teacher can
actually do what is expected. The weakness is whether that is followed
through all the time or regularly because they don’t come into the classroom
enough.
Because it is a formal process, no matter how long you have been teaching,
it makes every teacher nervous. If the principal doesn’t come into the class
room often and they don’t know how your classroom is managed, they
might be seeing something that doesn’t reflect what is going on or the
routine. That can be difficult for someone who doesn’t come into the room
often.
Consequences fo r “Weak” and
“ Strong” Teachers
The evaluation process could hold significant consequences for both weak
and strong teachers. As a legal document, the summary evaluation has an effect on
employment. Nonpermanent teachers who are found to be unsatisfactory are re
leased from their teaching positions. Permanent teachers who are denoted as un-
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfactory are required to participate in PAR. These permanent teachers on PAR
are legally required to be evaluated on a yearly basis until they are found to be sat
isfactory.
The Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources expressed a concern re
garding the psychological aspect that principals may experience when working
with teachers who are ineffective educators.
We are in a profession of helping people. We have trouble delivering an
unwelcome message. I don’t think we should be afraid to do that because
the single most important decision an administrator makes is giving a
teacher permanency. As professionals we need to be receptive to feedback
and improvement. Sometimes there is a reluctance to deal with improve
ment and trying to make a difference. I think it is important for those in my
role in Human Resources to provide a road map and conversation pieces for
how to do it. It is difficult to find the right words. That is something we
can and have provided in terms of training and support.
Part of the problem in evaluation is that you must be direct if they don’t
meet standards. Principals sometimes avoid the hard stuff. I don’t blame
them, because it takes so much time and effort. There are unsatisfactory
and uncomfortable situations that occur when telling someone that the
children are not getting what they need.
Those teachers who had been on permanent status for 5 years and had re
ceived a satisfactory rating on their summary evaluation and a recommendation
from the principal were given the option to participate in the alternative methods of
the evaluation process, which included portfolio and partner options. Those teach
ers who participated in these methods of evaluation were given an extended time
between evaluations.
While the collection of data was taking place, the Assistant Superintendent
of Human Resources expressed that the collective bargaining process at that time
was negotiating the language to meet AB 954. This law would extend the evalua
tion cycle to 5 years for those teachers who had worked for the district for 10 years
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and had received satisfactory summary evaluations, provided there was adminis
trator agreement.
Many exemplary permanent teachers need positive reinforcement and feed
back from principals but do not need to be evaluated every other year. I
believe teachers and administration with an alternative process enables the
administrator to focus on new teachers before they are permanent or those
that need extra support.
An analysis of the documentation, interview, and survey data indicated that
the evaluation process was perceived to be a moderately effective process at
Boulder Elementary in improving teacher practice (Figure 1). The survey and in
terviews indicated that different components of the process had impacted their
teaching practices. The culture of the school site had also been impacted by the
importance placed on collaboration to improve teaching and learning, as indicated
by the 91.4% of the teachers who collaborated on a regular basis on instruction
matters. As stated in the interviews by those who participated in an alternative
option, the partnership option was seen to be a strong method in supporting teach
ers’ professional development because of its collaborative and reflective nature.
Most of the interviewed teachers were not strongly satisfied by the infre
quent informal observations within and outside of the evaluation process. A great
deal of input from those teachers indicated that they would have liked the adminis
trator to visit their classrooms on a regular basis. The majority of teachers indi
cated in both the interviews and the survey that this was the area in which support
for school success was limited. The majority of teachers believed that it was the
demands of the school district and site that prevented the administrator from being
in classrooms more often.
District and site documents provided teachers and administrators with the
information to facilitate the evaluation process effectively. The site documents,
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
staff development, grade-level agendas, minutes, and evaluation information were
provided to the teachers to keep them well informed about expectations.
The data in this study revealed factors that teachers and the administrators
felt contributed significantly to the improvement of teacher practice. The analysis
indicated that the focus of a professional development objective impacted teaching
practices. Collaboration with peers seemed to be the crucial link between profes
sional development and improved teacher practice, as indicated by all interview
participants and 91.4% of the survey respondents.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a review of the purpose of the study, a summary of the
findings, a statement of conclusions based on the findings, and recommendations
for future research.
Teacher evaluation has a twofold objective. The legislative objective is to
make employment decisions, while the other objective is to improve teacher
practice. Research has indicated that good teaching practices positively impact
student achievement (Haycock, 1998). With a diverse population, California is
challenged to provide quality teachers who meet the varying needs of all students,
including those who are learning disabled, at risk, and linguistically or eco
nomically disadvantaged. Edward Iwanicki (2001) noted that effective teacher
evaluations must integrate the process of staff development with analyzing teaching
based on student learning to focus on school improvement.
To positively impact the evaluation practice, the following six factors must
be considered: updated and extensive evaluative criteria, two-way communication,
differentiation between new and experienced teachers, shared values and assump
tions about good teaching, precision in evaluating performance, and administrator
expertise (C. Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Teachers have become more active in
the process of teacher evaluation and other school efforts to improve teaching prac
tices.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purpose of the Study
This case study was designed to inquire into the perceptions of administra
tors and teachers regarding factors that influenced teaching practices. The first
purpose was to determine the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluation. The second purpose was to determine how the school carried out the
teacher evaluation process. The third purpose was to determine what principals and
teachers viewed as the factors that have shaped school level efforts. The fourth
purpose was to determine the perceptions of administrators and teachers regarding
the effectiveness of the evaluation process at the school site.
This case study focused on an elementary school site (K-6) in the BUSD.
The researcher collected data and analyzed the data qualitatively and quantitatively
to determine whether the teacher evaluation process was an effective tool and to
identify alternative strategies and processes within the school site that were effec
tive in improving teaching and that could be used within the teacher evaluation
process.
Summary o f Findings and Implications
Data were collected via a teacher survey, teacher and administrator inter
views, and a review of documents and observation tools. The case study findings
on this high-performing urban elementary school in a unified school district were
compiled and triangulated in the fall of 2004.
The process developed to evaluate teacher practice in the BUSD yielded an
unexpected result. If directly asked whether the evaluation process is effective in
improving teacher practice, most teachers responded affirmatively. However, when
asked in the interviews whether administrative feedback had a major impact on
teaching practice, the majority of the teachers responded negatively. In analyzing
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teacher responses, many factors within and outside the teacher evaluation process
were perceived to enhance teacher practice, including supervision, professional
development, and collaboration embedded into the teacher evaluation process.
Seven major findings resulted from this investigation:
Finding 1: The manner in which the evaluation process is developed and
addressed in the collective bargaining process had significant impact on its effec
tiveness.
Both district administration and teachers were aware of the district policy
and strategies for carrying out teacher evaluation, as well as the goals and objec
tives (94.1%) and its connection to the Education Code and collective bargaining
agreement (97.1%). The collaborative development of the current teacher evalua
tion process by the district and teacher union and ongoing staff development and
documentation provided information that supported teachers in having a strong
understanding about the policy and procedures.
Due to the collaborative efforts between the district and the teachers’ union,
a comprehensive and flexible evaluative process was developed. Two evaluative
options were added to the formal teacher evaluation process: the peer/partnership
and the portfolio methods. Permanent teachers were encouraged to use these re
flective practices. A positive consequence for permanent teachers of being found
satisfactory in the peer/partnership or portfolio option was an extended evaluation
cycle.
This findings can be generalized to support other districts in developing a
more collaborative and reflective teacher evaluation process. Collaborative devel
opment by the district and union, as well as the inclusion of a pilot study to
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
facilitate the inclusion of this new reflective evaluative process, can bring about
positive change in the teacher evaluation process and teacher practice.
Finding 2: Along with formal observations, informal observations with
constructive feedback positively impacted teacher and administrative communica
tion.
Perceptions of both teachers and site administrators indicated in the inter
views were that the evaluation process had changed teaching practices. Teachers
were clear about the expectations and process of the teacher evaluation practice at
the school site. A high percentage (97.1%) of teachers agreed on the survey that
they received timely feedback from the administrator in the formal observation;
they clearly agreed (94.1%) that the feedback was a contributing factor in enhanc
ing their teaching practices.
Although some teachers who were interviewed stated that the feedback pro
vided during the evaluation process did not enhance their teaching practice, the
majority believed that feedback was important. However, only 23.5% of the teach
ers responding to the survey agreed that the administrator consistently visited their
classrooms to provide ongoing feedback. Teachers who were interviewed indicated
that they appreciated administrators informally visiting their classrooms but they
had great concerns that many constraints were placed on the administrator that kept
the administrator away from the classroom. Both teachers and administrators
agreed that increased visitations would increase the potential to change teaching
practices by providing more opportunities for communication. This finding is con
sistent with the recommendations of Sullivan and Glanzer (2000), who noted that
observations provide teachers with information about their classrooms and engage
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers in reflective practices and discussions that support teachers in improving
their instructional practices.
This finding has clear implications for administrators and teachers that may
be generalized to other schools and districts. Frequent informal observations that
provide constructive feedback contribute to an enhanced school culture and higher
teacher efficacy, stronger reflective practices, and improved communication be
tween administrator and teachers.
Finding 3: Site administrators were perceived to have responsibilities that
prevent consistent classroom visits.
Many teachers indicated via the survey that feedback directly impacted their
teaching practices (94.1%). A high percentage of teachers agreed that they felt
comfortable with the principal and could have a positive meeting to discuss in
structional strategies. What were lacking were consistent ongoing classroom visits;
therefore, consistent feedback did not occur on a regular basis. Only 23.5% of the
teachers agreed that the administrator observed the classroom frequently. This
limited the administrator’s ability to observe teacher strategies, skills, and expecta
tions, which could create a negative opinion of the principal’s ability to provide
meaningful feedback, especially with the upper elementary grade teachers, when
the principal finally does visit.
As for cost effectiveness, a great deal of administrative time is spent in
facilitating the formal evaluation process. Due to time constraints, it has become
apparent to a large number of teachers and the administrator that informal class
room visits were limited. In all, the teachers and administrators indicated that the
evaluation process was moderately effective.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This finding has implications for site administrators. Scheduling classroom
visits within the school week on a regular ongoing basis is essential to ensure that
uninterrupted time is dedicated to this activity. Effective and efficient time man
agement must be developed by the site administrator to ensure that classroom visits
take place. Teachers strongly believe that the administrator should visit the class
rooms more often to provide more opportunities to influence teacher practice.
Finding 4: Focusing teachers in specific areas of ongoing staff develop
ment was perceived to be effective in improving teacher practice.
The forms that organize and focus the evaluation process, the PPG, are
based upon the CSTP. All teachers interviewed discussed the existence of a con
sistent yearly school-wide focus. The school-wide PPG focused the entire staff on
specific staff development opportunities that led to enhanced collaboration and
teaching practices. This professional growth plan focused teachers on specific
strategies and allowed for in-depth collaboration to improve teaching practices, as
indicated by the 8 teachers and site administrator in interviews as well as the fact
that 88.2% of the teachers agreed in the survey that their participation in the
evaluation process had led to their professional growth and 94.3% agreed that the
goals and objectives of the school contributed to the school’s improvement.
The individual PPG allowed teachers to focus on specific areas that they felt
were essential to improving teaching practices. Researchers such as Linda Darling-
Hammond (1999) have found that effective teachers are not those who leam just to
teach but those who leam from teaching. These Pegs created an effective climate
in which the teachers and administrators could hold dialogues and focus on specific
areas of ongoing professional development. Teachers noted that the PPG focused
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
them on teaching practice and allowed for reflection, active participation, and feed
back.
The implication for administrators, district support staff, teachers, and edu
cators who plan staff development and teacher training programs is that a common
goal or purpose should be the focus for the entire school and year. This allows for
effective collaboration and professional development activities. Furthermore, to
improve teacher practice through the evaluation process, an area of improvement
must be agreed upon to provide a focus.
Finding 5: Teachers viewed collaboration, especially with peers, to be the
most significant factor contributing to enhanced teacher practice.
All teachers and administrators had a strong sense of collaboration, indi
cated by the fact that all teachers agreed on the survey that they were encouraged to
collaborate regularly on instructional matters. According to the teachers and site
administrator, collaboration was embedded in daily lunch, before and after school
discussions, banking days, and designated staff development days. Responses indi
cated that, although teachers collaborated regularly (91.4%, according to their
survey responses), interviewed teachers indicated that the discussions and dialogue
usually took place within a confined circle of peers. Teachers indicated that the
culture of the school site included the propensity of collaboration, as 94.3% of the
teachers agreed with the survey item indicating their peers’ competencies. They
strongly believed that, in working together and along with their principal, their
teaching practices improved.
The interviewed teachers and site administrator agreed that, in a specific in
stance, a professional development opportunity, DataWorks, was not only ineffec
tive but had negatively affected the school culture and teacher efficacy. However,
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the teachers believed that what had been the most effective in improving teacher
practice was the ongoing collaboration. Teachers noted that they had had a number
of opportunities to collaborate both formally and informally. The formal oppor
tunities included banking days, staff and grade-level meetings, and the additional
planned staff development days throughout the year.
As a part of collaboration, 12 teachers in 2004-2005 school year partici
pated in the partner model of teacher evaluation. The teachers who had experi
enced this option gave a high approval rating to this model. One teacher indicated
that working with an individual trained as a mentor had provided more extensive
feedback on specific teaching practices and allowed for an enhanced quality of pro
fessional development that directly impacted the improvement of her practice.
This finding has implications for teachers and district and site administra
tors who are responsible for professional development. All staff members who
participate in collaboration must be trained in strategies and skills to ensure that
shared practices and expectations occur in the collaborative process. In addition,
many collaborative opportunities must be provided for teachers in order for teach
ing practices to be positively affected.
Finding 6: Teachers agreed that they play an active role in site decision
making.
Teachers agreed that they have an active role in making site decisions
(88.6%). Yet it was also clear that the teachers who participated in the interviews
agreed with the principal that decisions ultimately rested with the principal. Most
teachers (77.1%) agreed on the survey that they had significant input in the devel
opment of the school-wide PPG. The administrator and the teachers agreed that
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they had opportunities to participate in the development of professional develop
ment.
The results of this study indicate that the administrator had the majority of
control in making decision for the school. The perception of the administrator and
some of the teachers was that most teachers were concerned with providing input
and making suggestions with the fear of negative peer responses that would be per
sonally directed. Some of the teachers stated in interviews that they were not com
fortable in sharing their ideas, suggestions, or taking a stance regarding decision
making in an open forum. This left much of the decision making in the hands of
the administrative staff, especially the principal.
This finding has implications for administrators and site leadership teams.
The climate and culture of a school site dictate how shared decisions are made by
the staff. In a more accepting climate of all teachers’ opinions, a site would
strongly benefit from shared decision making and, according to those interviewed,
it is often the fear of retaliation by other teachers and not school administration that
hinders the process.
Finding 7: In a high-performing school, teacher self-efficacy and shared
values and beliefs about students were essential to the success o f the school site.
In terms of culture, 94.3% of the teachers indicated satisfaction with peer
competence. Interviews indicated that all of these teachers believed that they set
high expectations for student learning. All teachers agree in the survey that all stu
dents were able to leam and 74.3% agreed that all students could achieve at a high
level. Also, all agreed that, when they really tried, they got through to most stu
dents. All teachers and the site administrator agreed in the interviews that the ma
jority of celebration was focused on the whole child, not on academics.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A high percentage of teachers who were surveyed and interviewed indicated
that their teaching had made a difference in the school’s success. On the survey,
94.3% agreed that student proficiency was improved because of the quality of their
instructional practices. All teachers agreed in interview that they were valued;
however, an underlying issue suggested that two of these teachers did not feel
valued as professionals by society as a whole.
A large impact on teacher practice appeared to be due to shared beliefs and
values. All teachers expressed that students were a priority in the school. This
finding has important implications that could positively impact school culture by
ensuring that the administrator utilizes effective supervision and evaluation prac
tices to encourage a high teacher self-efficacy level and expresses shared values
and beliefs about teaching and student learning.
Conclusions
The findings of this study highlight the importance of the structure of prac
tices and procedures in enhancing the teacher evaluation process and teacher prac
tices at an urban elementary school site. It was found that collaboration between
the district and union in developing and implementing the procedures and polices
that dictate the teacher evaluation process had a significant impact on the effective
ness of the practice. Collective bargaining has been found to negatively impact
public education when too much power is given to unions over issues such as
teacher evaluation (Izumi, 2002). Working in conjunction with the unions and
piloting new evaluation procedures agreed upon by the district and union ensures
that neither side of the bargaining table gains too much power.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Not only is teacher and administrative input essential in developing effec
tive policies and procedures; it is also important in building capacity for improving
teacher practice. Teachers’ perceptions are that administrative and collaborative
feedback is essential to supporting professional development. Effective supervi
sion practices enhance the likelihood for enhanced teaching practices. However,
there tends to be insufficient time allocated to this practice by administrators
(Acheson & Gall, 2003). Components of effective supervision include objective
classroom observations, feedback, and planning conferences. For many adminis
trators, daily issues arise at the school site that limit the time spent in supervising
classroom teachers. Restricting the ability to visit classrooms negatively impacts
the evaluation process, collaboration, decision-making practices, and the culture of
a school site.
It is concluded that the teacher evaluation process can be enhanced by em
bedding and improving practices that occur at the school site outside of the formal
evaluation process. To ensure that everyday practices are embedded into the
evaluation process, all teachers and administrators must not only be clear about the
evaluation expectations but must also share common goals and objectives. Site
administrators must facilitate formal and frequent informal observations. Focused
staff development activities lead to enhanced collaboration through an understand
ing of shared beliefs, values, and decision-making processes and procedures.
Recommendations for Practice
Accountability for student achievement has been at the fore of politics at the
national and state levels. NCLB in 2001 and California’s PSAA in 1999 linked
schools’ success and student achievement with the quality of teachers. As the
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
requirements for accountability have increased, there has been a need to examine
the teacher evaluation process and other site practices to enhance teacher practices.
This study’s findings are generalized only to a single school district. There are
clear implications for educational administrators regarding the directions and im
plications of policy and practice to improve the teacher evaluation system and
enhance teacher practices.
The findings suggest that the evaluation process is believed by teachers to
be moderately effective in improving teacher practice, while other practices outside
the evaluation process are believed to improve teacher practice more effectively.
The evaluation process has been developed to focus the teachers on learning objec
tives, data collection and analysis, strategy and skill focus, professional develop
ment, feedback, reflection on instructional practices, and future professional
development. The site practices encourage active participation by both the teacher
and administrator in collaboration toward improving teacher practices. These em
bedded strategies all have a research-based foundation on improving teacher prac
tice (C. Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Diamond & Handi, 2002; Drake & McBride,
2000). The attributes of the evaluation process suggest that the teacher evaluation
practice can enhance the quality of teaching.
Recommendation 1: Collaboration by district and union representatives
enhances the ability to develop a more effective teacher evaluation process that
supports enhanced teacher practice.
It is recommended that districts create teacher evaluation processes and pro
cedures collaboratively with their unions. By working together, a new evaluation
process can be created that fulfills Education Code requirements and includes spe
cific components that meet the agreed goals and objectives for improving teacher
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practice. The district taking a symbolic approach to develop an effective teacher
evaluation process is essential to ensure that teachers have an interest in enhancing
teacher practice.
Recommendation 2: Site administrators must develop time management
strategies to ensure that classroom visits take place on an ongoing basis.
To ensure that the administrator can make appropriate evaluative decisions
for employment or enhanced teacher practice, it is recommended that weekly in
formal visitations take place that include feedback on teaching practices. If this
practice is embedded into the school culture and climate, enhanced collaboration
and improved teacher practice will result. Districts must support the site adminis
trators in this endeavor. District goals and objectives must include reorganizing
site management practices to include mandatory ongoing classroom visitations. To
accomplish this, it is imperative to train site administrators regarding time man
agement skills. This practice will be invaluable in ensuring that teachers are con
sistently focusing on the school-wide and personal professional growth objectives.
Recommendation 3: District administrators, site administrators, and
teachers would benefit significantly from staff development activities focusing on
formative assessment to support the teachers in enhancing their teaching practices.
It is recommended that specific training be provided for administrators and
for those teachers who choose to participate in the partner option in effective ob
servational data collection and feedback that has been shown to support instruc
tional improvement. The ability to provide high-quality assessment of peers
requires ongoing professional development to develop a teacher’s skills and knowl
edge base (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2005). This ensures effective ob
servational and feedback techniques that will be utilized with collaborating partners
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and peers. Collaboration and mentorship have proven to be effective in enhancing
the quality of teachers (L. Danielson, 2002). The partner option requires teachers
to be active participants, which creates a culture that encourages deep reflection,
ongoing learning, and eventual increased job satisfaction (Danielson). It is recom
mended that district and site administrators build the skills of the professional edu
cator through formative assessment trainings for administrators and partner option
participants.
Recommendation 4: The district teacher evaluation policy should include a
component o f mandated ongoing classroom visitations to emphasize the importance
of improving instructional practices.
The purpose of supervision is to focus on the improvement of instruction
(Costa & Garmston, 2001). It is recommended that school leaders focus on the
enhancement of teacher practice by conducting ongoing classroom visits and pro
viding feedback to teachers. The practice of supervision requires administrators to
be facilitators of collaborative decision making and professional development to
provide instructional support (Lashway, 2002; Wade, 2001) and facilitate teacher
evaluation (Webb & Norton, 2003). Summative evaluation is related to employ
ment decisions. Supervision encompasses ongoing formative evaluation that is
utilized to improve teacher practice (C. Danielson & McGreal, 2000). To fully
implement effective supervision, it is essential that the administrator consistently
visit classrooms and provide feedback to the teachers regarding teaching and
learning. It is recommended that the district and site-level administrators promote
and require site administrators to initiate regular informal observations to provide
instructional feedback to all teachers in order for them to develop their professional
competencies.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As administrators and teachers become more effective in embedding these
practices into the evaluation process, site decisions, self-efficacy, and shared values
and beliefs will become a stronger factor in enhancing school culture.
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendation 1: Study the effects o f the Education Code and collective
bargaining on the development o f teacher evaluation practices.
The process of teacher evaluation, the role of the site administrator, and
how the school makes decisions have significantly changed in BUSD. However,
the Education Code, legislating certificated evaluation policies, has not changed
since 1971 to meet the needs of school districts and sites. Collective bargaining
negotiations have also affected school districts in the implementation of the
evaluation process. Literature in this area indicates that collective bargaining has
had a negative effect on the issues determined to be outside of the scope of nego
tiations (Dannis, 1998). This study showed that a district working in conjunction
with the union can create an effective teacher evaluation process that supports the
improvement of teacher practice. Still, districts must work within legislative and
negotiated contract agreements. Implications of this study in need of further inves
tigation focus on the Education Code and collective bargaining agreements. Leg
islation should be changed to allow all state accountability testing data to be
included in the evaluation process in order to provide teachers with specific rec
ommendations as well as time and opportunity to improve.
More data are needed to determine what factors within the Education Code
provide support or limit the school districts’ ability to develop or implement the
evaluation processes. Additional research is needed to determine what specific
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
negotiated decisions, within the collective bargaining process, have specifically
negatively impacted the teacher evaluation process.
Recommendation 2: Identify effective formative assessment programs that
can be utilized in teacher evaluation
Further research is needed to determine what professional development
programs would support administrators and teachers in observation, data collection
and analysis, and feedback skills to support professional growth. Mentor teachers
and support providers in the BTSA program are provided with a research-based
observational tool, the California Formative Assessment and Support System for
Teachers (CFASST) to facilitate formative assessment. Feedback from formative
assessment allows the observer to help the teacher to become aware of the gaps that
exist between practice and the intended goal (Boston, 2002). However, CFASST is
not available for administrators to use at the school site. This study suggests that
teachers who are provided skills and strategies to address teacher observations, data
collection, and reflection are better equipped to enhance teacher practice through
collaboration and mentorship.
Recommendation 3: Conduct a meta-analysis o f similar studies.
Because this study used teacher and administrator perceptions, there was no
way to differentiate between the perceptions of experiences and the actual experi
ences. The data results from this study should be combined in a meta-analysis of
the doctoral studies related to this research. These results would provide a more
accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation process and de
termine the implications for improvement of the system.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (2003). Clinical supervision and teacher develop
ment: Preserviced and inservice applications. New York: Wiley.
Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The
Clearing House, 75(3), 118-121.
Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: De
veloping teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 15-22.
Banks, D. (1999). Issues o f supply and demand: Recruiting and retaining quality
teachers. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bedrock [pseudonym] Unified School District. (1986). BUSD [pseudonym] board
policy.
Bedrock [pseudonym] Unified School District. (1994). BUSD [pseudonym] ad
ministrative regulations.
Bedrock [pseudonym] Unified School District. (2002). BUSD [pseudonym] ad
ministrative regulations.
Bedrock [pseudonym] Unified School District and Bedrock [pseudonym] Teachers
Association. (2000). Bedrock [pseudonym] Unified School District collec
tive bargaining agreement.
Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hisch, E. (2004). The search for highly qualified teachers.
Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 684-689.
Betts, J. R., Ruben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal out
comes? The distribution o f school resources and student achievement in
California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Boston, C. (2002). The concept o f formative assessment. Retrieved July 26, 2004,
fromhttp://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9
Boyd, R. T. C. (1989). Improving teacher evaluations. Practical assessment, re
search, and evaluation. Retrieved July 25,2004, from
http://www.ericfaciltiy.net/ericdigests/ed315431 .html
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997a). California standards
for the teaching profession. Sacramento: Author.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997b). California’ s future:
Highly qualified teachers for all students. Sacramento: Author.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001). Annual report on Cali
fornia teacher preparation programs academic year 2001-2002. Sacra
mento, CA: Author.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2002). Request for proposals:
The effects o f implementing California’ s credentialing reforms pursuant to
the provisions o f SB 2042. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education. (1997). California standards for the teaching profession. Sac
ramento: Author.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2000). Immediate intervention/
underperforming schools program: Eligibility for 2000-2001 state plan
ning grants. Sacramento: Author.
California School Boards Association. (1999). Collective bargaining: Maximiz
ing school board leadership. West Sacramento, CA: Author.
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2002). California’ s teaching
force: Key issues and trends 2002. Sacramento, CA: SRI International.
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003, Spring). The classic study on poor children’s
fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 14-22.
Cohen, R. M. (2002). Schools our teachers deserve: A proposal for teacher-
centered reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 7.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (1985). Supervision for intelligent teaching. Edu
cational Leadership, 42(4), 28-33.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,
58(5), 12-15.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance pro
fessional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur
riculum Development.
Danielson, L. (2002, March/April). Developing and retaining quality classroom
teachers through mentoring: OCLC First Search. The Clearing House,
75(4), 183-185.
Dannis, G. J. (1998). A common-sense glossary o f negotiations terms. Sacra
mento: Association of California School Administrators.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Professional development for teachers: Setting the
stage for learning from teaching. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of
Teaching and Learning.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ball, L., & Loewenberg, D. (1998). Teaching for high
standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do (CPRE Joint
Report Series. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L, Wise, A. E., & Klien, S. P. (1995). A licence to teach:
Building a profession for 21st-century schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Diamond, M., & Handi, E. (2002). The proof is in the portfolio. Principal, 81(4),
57-58.
Doolittle, P. (1994). Teacher portfolio assessment. Practical Assessment, Re
search, and Evaluation, 4( 1). Retrieved July 27, 2004, from
http :/P AREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=4&n= 1
Drake, F. D., & McBride, L. W. (2000). The summative teacher portfolio and the
reflective practitioner of history. The History Teacher, 34(1), 41-60.
Dunklee, D. R., & Shoop, R. J. (2002). The principal’ s quick reference guide to
school law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commit
ment: An investigation of a path model. Journal o f Curriculum and Super
vision, 18(2), 110-141.
Escamilla, P., Clarke, T., & Linn, D. (2000). Exploring teacher peer review.
Washington, Dc: Education Policy Studies Division of the National Gov
ernors’ Association Center for Best Practices.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An intro
duction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Geringer, J. (2003). Reflections on professional development: Toward high-
quality teaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 373-375, 380.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2005). The basic guide to
supervision and instructional leadership. Boston: Pearson.
Goldrick, L. (2002). Improving teacher evaluation to improve teaching quality.
Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
Haselkom, D., & Harris, L. (2001). The essential profession: California educa
tion at the crossroads. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters ... a lot: Teaching and California’ s
future. Washington, DC: Center for Teaching and Learning.
Heath, M. (2002). Electronic portfolios for reflective self-assessment. Teacher
Librarian, 30(1), 19-23.
Hiebert, R., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the
teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?
Educational Researcher, 37(5), 3-15.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Iwanicki, E. F. (2001). Focusing on teacher evaluations on student learning. Al
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Izumi, L. (2002). Union bill a bad bargain for California schools. Pacific Re
search Institute, 7,13.
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Reproduction Service
No. ED466023)
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers.
Teachers Education Quarterly, 28, 109-114.
Munk, L. G. (1998). Improvement #5: Strengthen teacher evaluation clauses.
Retrieved from http://www.mackinac.org/print.asp?ID=1397
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1994). Public elementary teachers ’
views on teacher performance evaluations. Washington, DC: U.S. De
partment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Executive summary, teacher
preparation and professional development. Washington, DC: U.S. De
partment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Neil, J. E. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and effectiveness. Washing
ton, Dc: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
No Child Left Behind Act o f2001. (2002). Retrieved October 26, 2002, from
http//www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/factsheet.html
Olebe, M. (2001, Winter). A decade of policy support for California’s new teach
ers: The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program. Teachers
Education Quarterly, 28, 71-84.
Painter, S. R. (2000). Easing dismissal and non-renewals. School Administrator,
57(9), 40-43.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pardini, P. (2001, Summer). A good fit. JSD, 23-29.
Parmet, S. (2004, February 19). 72 schools face sanctions; campuses didn’t meet
federal academic marks. San Diego Union-Tribune, p. B-l. Retrieved July
18, 2004, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the
challenge o f instructional improvement. Retrieved April 4, 2004, from
http://www.eric facility.net/ericdigests/ed396615.html
Pearson, M. J., & Honig, B. (1992). Success for beginning teachers: The Califor
nia New Teacher Project 1988-1992. Sacramento: California Commission
on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education.
Riley, P., Fusano, R., Munk, L., & Peterson, R. (2002). Contract for failure: The
impact o f teacher union contracts on the quality of California Schools. San
Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Sargent, B. (2003, May). Finding good teachers and keeping them. Educational
Leadership, 44-47.
Savanna School District. (1993). Board Policy 4115. Anaheim, CA: Author.
Sheppard, B. (2003). If to do in schools were as easy as to know what were good
to do. Education Canada, 43, 16-19, 31.
Smith, S. (2002). Teacher mentoring and collaboration. Teacher Education, 1,
47-48.
Spitz, F. (2001). Through the looking glass: Teacher evaluation through self
reflection. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning,
5(18). Retrieved July 28,2004, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/
volume5/spitz.html
Stedman, J. B. (2003). K-12 teacher quality: Issues and legislation action.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Sullivan, S. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the field.
Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 15, 212-235.
Sullivan, S., & Glanzer, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies
and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Wade, H. H. (2001). Data inquiry and analysis for educational reform. Retrieved
August 9, 2003, from http://www.askeric.org/ed461911.html
Watson, C. A. (1998). Teacher and administrator performance evaluation study
for school reform legislation for the state o f Wyoming. Cheyenne: Wyo
ming Department of Education.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Webb, L. D. & Norton, M. S. (2003). Human resources administration: Person
nel issues and needs in education. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Weiss, M., & Weiss, S. G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. Re
trieved July 28,2004, from http://www.ericfacility.net
/ericdigests/ed429052.html
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ybarra, S., & Hollingsworth, J. (2001). Increasing classroom productivity. Lead
ership, 31(1), 34-35.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
TEACHER SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey: Teacher Evaluation and Supervision
Instructions: The Dissertation Committee is very interested in gathering your perceptions as a
member of the staff with regards the direct and indirect factors affecting the teacher evaluation and
supervision processes currently taking place at this school. Below is a short survey containing a
series of statements for you to evaluate based on your knowledge of the school. Please be as
honest as possible, as your responses are completely anonymous and will only be used to
produce findings on issues related teacher evaluation and supervision. You may rate each of
the statements below on a four-point Likert Scale as follows:
0 = Strongly Disagree
1 = Disagree
2 = Agree
3 = Strongly Agree
Background Information:
1) Number of years as a teacher: (Please circle one)
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. lly rs . +
2) Number of years at this location: (Please circle one)
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. lly rs . +
Policy: Teachers ’ knowledge and perceptions o f official documents regarding the teacher evalua
tion process.
3)
I am aware of the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
4)
I understand the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
5)
I agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s policy
on teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
6) I am satisfied that my site administrators are carrying out the
district’s policy on teacher evaluation with integrity. 0 1 2 3
Teacher Evaluation: The extent to which the administration actively participated in the formal
evaluation process, as mandated by the California Education Code, which may have included ob
servations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement strategies.
7) My administrator frequently observes my classroom for the
purpose of evaluation. 0 1 2 3
8) My administrator and I often discuss the instructional strategies
I use in my classroom. 0 1 2 3
9) I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher
evaluation policies as an integral part of my professional growth. 0 1 2 3
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10) When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks for
things which we agreed upon at a pre-conference. 0 1
11) I receive timely feedback following my observations. 0
12) The teacher evaluation feedback assists me improving my
teacher practice. 0
13) I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate my
instructional practice. 0
14) There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g. PAR,
portfolio, etc.) available at my school. 0
15) I have participated in an alternative evaluation process before. 0
16) I believe that my participation in the teacher evaluation process
at this school has led to my professional growth. 0
2 3
2 3
Ongoing Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participated in a
supervision process through observations, data collections, feedback, goal setting, and improvement
strategies.
17) The administration frequently observes my classroom.
18) Other instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors, etc.)
frequently observe my classroom.
19) I receive meaningful feedback regarding my teaching following
an observation.
20) I have discussions with administrators regarding my teaching.
21) I have discussions with instructional support staff (not including
site administrators) regarding my teaching.
22) I see the administration’s supervision of instruction as
non-evaluative and separate from formal evaluation processes.
23) I am aware of the specific things that administrators look for
when visiting my classroom.
24) I am confident in my administration’s ability to monitor
my instructional practice.
25) I believe that my administration’s supervision of instruction
improves my instructional practice.
26) I believe that other instructional support staff’s supervision
of instruction improves my instructional practice.
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2 3
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Efforts: Teacher’ s perception o f school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may have led to school improvement.
27) I have multiple opportunities throughout the year to participate
in professional development activities. 0
28) Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on instructional
matters on a regular basis. 0
29) I collaborate with others on instructional matters on a regular basis. 0
30) I am aware of an official professional development plan that
has been prepared to share with the district and school
community at large. 0
31) I have a clear understanding of the professional development
goals for my school. 0
32) Teachers have an active role in developing professional
development goals and objectives. 0
School Culture: Teacher’ s perception o f “ the way we do things around here. '
33) I am comfortable going to my school administrators for support. 0
34) I am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 0
35) I believe in the goals and objectives of this school. 0
36) The values of this school are consistent with my own values. 0
37) The goals and objectives of this school have contributed
to our school’s improvement. 0
38) I am satisfied with the professional competence and teaching
ability of my teaching colleagues. 0
39) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of the administration. 0
40) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of the instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors,
etc.). 0
41) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of teachers in leadership roles at this school. 0
42) Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and instruction
impact our school’s ability to improve. 0
43) Teachers have an active role in making decisions for the school. 0
2
2
2
2
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44) Teachers have initiated efforts towards school improvement.
45) The majority of school improvement efforts at this school
have been initiated by the district and/or site administration.
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’s belief that he/she can make a difference in student
46) I believe that all student can learn. 0
47) When I really try, I can get through to most students. 0
48) If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be
because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept. 0
49) When a student is having difficulty with an assignment,
I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 0
50) When the grades/proficiency levels of my students improve,
it is usually because I used my effective teaching approaches. 0
51) I believe that all students can achieve at high levels. 0
52) The influence of a student’s home environment can be
overcome by good teaching. 0
earning.
2
2
2
2
Prepared by Kevin Astor, Cece Camerino, Betsy Castillo, Dale Hillyer, Sheree
Jederberg, Mary La Masa, Alicia Lindheim, Elsa Mendoza, Denise Miranda, Vic
toria Muhonen-Hemandez, Stefanie Phillips, Jacqueline Perez-Orozco, Nnamdi
Uzor, and Jo Zarro.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE: ADMINISTRATORS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrator Interview
School Efforts: Teacher’s perception of school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may lead to school improvement.
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
1. Why is this school
successful?
2. What school wide
programs and/or
strategies have been
implemented to im
prove student
achievement?
3. What efforts impact
instructional practice?
4. How are these school
efforts reflected in the
teacher evaluation
process?
5. Explain your school’s
plan for professional
development and its
link to the school’s
success.
6. How are individual
teacher professional
development goals
and objectives linked
to the evaluation
process?
7. Who decides what and
how professional de
velopment is offered?
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Culture: Teacher’s perceptions of “the way we do things around here.”
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
8. How are school site
decisions made?
9. Where does the lead
ership come from at
the school site?
10. How is conflict re
solved at the school?
11. How is information
communicated at the
school site?
12. Whom do you view
as school leaders?
13. What is celebrated
here?
Prepared by Kevin Astor, Cece Camerino, Betsy Castillo, Dale Hillyer, Sheree
Jederberg, Mary La Masa, Alicia Lindheim, Elsa Mendoza, Denise Miranda, Vic
toria Muhonen-Hemandez, Stefanie Phillips, Jacqueline Perez-Orozco, Nnamdi
Uzor, and Jo Zarro.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE: TEACHERS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Interview
Policy: Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of official documents regarding the teacher
evaluation process.
Question As Evidenced Dominant frame Rationale
1. How would you
describe your dis
trict’s policy on
teacher evaluation?
2. How does the
teacher evaluation
process affect your
practice in the class
room?
3. What modifications
would you recom
mend for the
teacher evaluation
policy that would
improve your prac
tice?
Teacher Evaluation: The extent to which the administration actively participated in the
formal evaluation process, as mandated bv the California Education Code, which may have
included observations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement strategies.
Question As Evidenced Dominant frame Rationale
4. Describe your ex
periences with the
evaluation process.
5. What are the
strengths and weak
nesses of the evalua
tion process at this
school?
6. What elements of
the evaluation pro
cess are effective in
improving teacher
practice?
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participate in the su
pervision process through observations, data collections, feedback, goal setting, and improve
ment strategies.____________ ^ _________
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
7. Outside of the evalua
tion process, what
types of interactions
do/have you engaged
in with administra
tion, colleagues and
other educators re
garding instruction?
8. Outside the evaluation
process, what types of
instructional feedback
are you given?
School Efforts: Teacher’s perception of school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may lead to school improvement.
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
9. Why is this school
successful?
10. What school wide
programs and/or
strategies have been
implemented to im
prove student
achievement?
11. What efforts impact
instructional practice?
12. How are these school
efforts reflected in the
teacher evaluation
process?
13. Explain your school’s
plan for professional
development and its
link to the school’s
success.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14. How are individual
teacher professional
development goals
and objectives linked
to the evaluation
process?
15. Who decides what and
how professional de
velopment is offered?
School Culture: Teacher’s perceptions of “the way we do things around here.”
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
16. How are school site
decisions made?
17. Where does the lead
ership come from at
the school site?
18. How is conflict re
solved at the school?
19. How is information
communicated at the
school site?
20. Whom do you view
as school leaders?
21. What is celebrated
here?
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’s belief that he/she can make a difference in student learning.
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
22. Do you believe that
you are a valued
member in this
school? Why/Why
not?
23. What factors do you
believe contribute to
student learning?
Notes
Prepared by Kevin Astor, Cece Camerino, Betsy Castillo, Dale Hillyer, Sheree
Jederberg, Mary La Masa, Alicia Lindheim, Elsa Mendoza, Denise Miranda, Vic
toria Muhonen-Hemandez, Stefanie Phillips, Jacqueline Perez-Orozco, Nnamdi
Uzor, and Jo Zarro.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
DOCUMENT REVIEW TEMPLATE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Document Review Analysis, p.
Title of
Document
Dale of Review
Type of
Document
Author/Dccision-
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.
Document Review Analysis, p2.
Title of Document Date of
Review
Notes
Stull Evaluation Forms
(school, district)
Stull Bill
Legislation/Education
Code 44660-44665
Collective Bargaining
Agreement
California Standards for
the Teaching Profession
(CSTP)
Single Plan for Student
Achievement
School Professional De
velopment Plan
Accreditation/Program
Quality Review
Demographic Data
No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Legislation
Meeting Minutes
Board Policy(ies)
District Memorandum/
Policy Bulletins
Prepared by Kevin Astor, Cece Camerino, Betsy Castillo, Dale Hillyer, Sheree
Jederberg, Mary La Masa, Alicia Lindheim, Elsa Mendoza, Denise Miranda, Vic
toria Muhonen-Hemandez, Stefanie Phillips, Jacqueline Perez-Orozco, Nnamdi
Uzor, and Jo Zarro.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION TEMPLATE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Observation Template
Notes
Purpose of Activity
Date/Location
Participants
General Sense
Is this activity reflective
of policy/mandate
implementation?
Is this activity reflective
of the teacher evaluation
process?
Does this activity reflect
teacher improvement or
student achievement
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
Prepared by Kevin Astor, Cece Camerino, Betsy Castillo, Dale Hillyer, Sheree
Jederberg, Mary La Masa, Alicia Lindheim, Elsa Mendoza, Denise Miranda, Vic
toria Muhonen-Hemandez, Stefanie Phillips, Jacqueline Perez-Orozco,
Nnamdi Uzor, and Jo Zarro.
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
i s r o R u m c o s s e m i o r x o s-\n :n ic .u . r e s k ir c u
ADMINISTRATOR CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
An Elementary School’s Perception on the Effectiveness of
Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Teacher Practice
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr.
Stuart E. Gothold and Mary E. La Masa, MA, from the Rossier School of Educa
tion at the University of Southern California. The results of this study will contrib
ute to a dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study due to
your level of experience with the teacher evaluation process in the xxxx Unified
School District. A total of 56 subjects will be selected from xxxx Elementary
School and the xxxx Unified School District Human Resources Department to par
ticipate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate, analyze, and describe how the use of
teacher evaluation processes and tools have impacted the way California schools improve
teacher practice, and ultimately student performance. Further, the purpose of the study is to
describe how one well performing elementary school utilizes the teacher evaluation
process to improve the teacher practices.
PROCEDURES
The four research questions, along with the Data Collection Tools, provided the
structure for analyzing data. The researcher will organize and reduce data while gleaning
key information that would highlight the district and school data collection and usage
practices from interviews and observations. Patterns of participant’s responses and ob
served activities will be described in comment sections of the rating form.
The teacher surveys will be tallied by grade level and then by years of teaching to
determine similarities and differences in teachers’ understanding and beliefs of the district
and school policies and practices as they pertain to teacher evaluation.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The information from the interviews will be compared and contrasted with infor
mation gathered from all direct observation conducted. For triangulation purposes, data
gathered through interviews, observations, and surveys will be merged for analysis of cor
roboration. Findings, describing key elements of teacher evaluation and its impact on
teacher practice will be reported in the form of a case study.
All data collection will take place in the Fall semester of 2004. Following the ap
proval of the dissertation study by district and school administrators, the researcher will
send a follow-up memorandum describing the study, data collection parameters, and time
line. On-going telephone conversations and electronic mail ensures understanding of the
scope of the study. The researcher will conduct two to three rounds of data collection that
include interviews, site visits, reviewing of documented evidence, and observations at both
district and site levels. Following the first round of data collection, preliminary data analy
sis will be completed.
The questions are grouped into the categories of teacher evaluation process, policy,
school reform efforts, school culture and beliefs concerning teaching. As needed, evidence
and/or documents to support interview questions or answers will be requested. The district
administrators and the site principal will provide requested documents and artifacts to sub
stantiate the interviews. The guide provides a framework for data collection and reporting.
The research questions, will guide the structure of interviews and observations.
On each data collection day, the researcher will spend time collecting envi
ronmental information. The researcher will collect evidence from district and school
records, district and school policies and procedures, district and school publications and
electronic sources. Information collected during each observation will be recorded on the
observation guide. One faculty meeting will be observed as well as informal observations
will be conducted in office support areas and throughout the school environment. Informal
interviews and conversations will be conducted with staff during data collection days.
Five instruments will be used to collect four types of data for this study: Re
sponses from interviews (taped for accuracy and destroyed upon the completion of the
study), teacher surveys, direct observations, and a review of documents containing
quantitative information will provide the data to support the findings of the study.
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things:
Interviews will be tape recorded with the consent of participants. The tapes
will be stored in the locked office of the co-principal investigators. Surveys will
also be stored in the locked office of the co-principal investigators. No personally
identifiable data will be collected.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The only risk would be the possible negative effect on one’s employment if
one made negative comments about the work place and those comments were both
made public and linked to the individual. We are not collecting identifiable
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information and we are storing the data in a secure location, so the likelihood of
this event occurring is minimal. Data will be stored in a secure location. The only
people with access to the data are the Principal Investigator and the Co-Principal
Investigator.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Individual participants will not directly benefit from this study. The findings from
this study will have a direct impact on the use of teacher evaluation tools and processes to
improve student performance via improved teacher practices and as a means of account
ability for classroom activities.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no compensation for the participants of this research study.
Each person who returns a survey will receive a $1 California lottery ticket as a
thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can
be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
no information will be included that would reveal your identity. Audiotapes will be
kept strictly confidential. If audiotape recordings of you will be used for educa
tional purposes, your identity will be shielded or disguised. The audiotapes will be
destroyed six months following publication of the study. No other uses for these
recordings are contemplated. The participants retain the right to review their
audiotaped segments upon request to the Co-principal investigator, prior to dis
posal.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circum
stances arise which warrant doing so.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact. Dr. Stuart E. Gothold, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089,
213-740-34 and Stefanie P. Phillips, 950 West D Street, Ontario, CA 91762, 909-
459-2500.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because
of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your
rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT’S BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL
STUDIES
Any person who is requested to consent to participate as a subject in a re
search study involving a psychosocial study, or who is requested to consent on
behalf of another, has the right to:
1. Be informed of the nature and purpose of the study.
2. Be given an explanation of the procedures to be followed in the study.
3. Be given a description of any attendant discomforts and risks reasonably to
be expected from your/your child’s participation in the study.
4. Be given an explanation of any benefits reasonably to be expected from
your/your child’s participation in the study.
5. Be given a disclosure of any appropriate alternatives that might be advan
tageous to you/your child, and their relative risks and benefits.
6. Be informed of avenues of resources, if any, available to you/your child
after the study procedure if complications should arise.
7. Be given an opportunity to ask any questions concerning the study or the
procedures involved.
8. Be instructed that consent to participate in the study may be withdrawn at
any time, and that you/your child may discontinue participation in the study
without prejudice.
9. Be given a copy of this form and the signed and dated written study consent
form.
10. Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to partici
pate in the study without the intervention of any element of force, fraud,
deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on your decision.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARC H SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, have carefully read the infor
mation contained in the Experimental Subject’s Bill of Rights for Psychosocial
Studies, and I understand folly the rights of a potential subject in a research study
involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
I give my consent to have any interviews audiotaped.
SiGNA T l RE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative,
and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the infor
mation described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator La Masa, Mary Elizabeth (author)

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

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

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

Language English

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

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-381284

Unique identifier UC11340946

Identifier 3180461.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-381284 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180461.pdf

Dmrecord 381284

Document Type Dissertation

Rights La Masa, Mary Elizabeth

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