University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability

(USC Thesis Other)

Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 1

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS IN AN ERA OF
HEIGHTENED TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY

by

Aaron V. Martini

____________________________________________________________________

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

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Aaron V. Martini

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Achievement of this degree required the input, support, and love from a community of
peers and mentors. I am eternally thankful to David Scott, a true educator, who assumed the role
of mentorship and supported me in this journey. Your insight, review, and feedback were
invaluable. Thank you for the countless hours, days, months, and years of support throughout
the entire process. I am humbled by your achievements and in turn your support of mine. This
achievement is shared with you.
Thank you to Dr. Pensavalle for serving as my dissertation chair and for guiding me
through the writing process. I appreciate your expertise, patience, and leadership. Thank you
for your tireless effort and support. Thank you to Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Humphrey for serving
on my committee. I am honored that both of you agreed to lend your experience and expertise. I
hope to emulate the humility, expertise, and professionalism shared within my committee.
In closing, I want to dedicate this dissertation, which represents the communal effort of
great educators, to the memory of Alexandra “Lady Alex” Finale. Thank you to Lady Alex for
your life-changing support. It was an honor to teach alongside you and share between us the
roles of mentor and peer. You changed my life and live on in my heart and the hearts of
educators and educated alike.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...2
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………. ...4
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………… ...5
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...6
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………………………… ...7
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………. ...18
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………....65
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………….. ...83
Chapter 5: Analysis of Findings…………………………………………………………... ...161
References………………………………………………………………………………….. ...174
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Cover Page (Optional Data)………………………………......195
Appendix B: Survey………………………………………………………………....196
Appendix C: Interview Questions…………………………………………………...197
Appendix D: Observation Protocol……………………………………………….....198
Appendix E: Teacher Consent Form for Survey, Interviews, And Observations... ...200

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Literature Review Table…………………………………………………………....59
Table 2. Methodology Overview…………………………………………………………. ...67
Table 3. National, SCSD, and MPS Student Demographic Profiles……………………… ...68
Table 4. Special Education Profiles………………………………………………………. ...69
Table 5. English Learners…………………………………………………………………....70
Table 6. Links Between Instruments, Research Question Components, and……………......72
the Literature
Table 7. Relating the Three Research Themes to Merriam’s (2009) Six Observation…… ...76
Items
Table 8. Gantt Chart Schedule of Data Collection and Analysis…………………………. ...77
Table 9. Summary of Methodology………………………………………………………. ...84
Table 10. Research Themes and Instrumentation………………………………………….. ...86
Table 11. Responses to Survey Questions (Students Presenting Learning Challenges)…… ...88
Table 12. Responses to Survey Questions (Student Achievement)………………………... ...99
Table 13. Support Strategies Used to Assist Students Presenting Learning Challenges….....104
Table 14. Responses to Survey Questions (Teacher Evaluations)……………………….......109
Table 15. Responses to Interview Question Three………………………………………......112
Table 16. Compared Responses to Interview Questions 10 and 11………………………. ...133
Table 17. Teacher Elaborations in Response to Interview Questions Four and Five…….. ...139
Table 18. Views About the Current Evaluative Process in General and Within MPS……....146
Table 19. Responses to Interview Questions Three and Eleven Compared………………....151
Table 20. Teacher VAM Ratings………………………………………………………..... ...156
Table 21. Comparisons between Interview Question Responses and VAM Scores……… ...157
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Theoretical framework…………………………………………………………... ...12
Figure 2. Phenomenological approach to data collection and analysis……………………. ...79

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

6
Abstract
This present research applies the socio-cultural theory framework. The current climate in
education includes formal emphases on student achievement and teacher performance. Students’
achievements link to teachers’ evaluations through performances on standardized tests. Certain
teacher dispositions enable teachers to overcome these performance pressures in an effort to
promote critical thinking and active learning among students presenting learning challenges.
Research highlights a number of factors that place students who present learning challenges at-
risk for underachievement. Students who present learning challenges may under-perform due to
family crises and other disruptions. The questions guiding this research focus on how teachers
reconcile performance pressures of evaluations with meeting the varying individual needs of
students presenting learning challenges. The qualitative nature of this research lends a voice to
how individual teachers meet the needs of students presenting learning challenges. Teacher
interviews include perspectives about how the current evaluative climate hinders or encourages
meeting the varying needs of students. Teachers revealed how they felt about what influences
student achievement, how they recognize students presenting learning challenges, how students
presenting learning challenges impact teacher evaluations, and inclusion strategies used in the
classroom. Teachers’ dispositions about students presenting learning challenges, student
achievement, and teacher evaluations serve as reference points throughout this research.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

7
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Research supports the argument that teacher quality affects student performance
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Koppich & Rigby, 2009; Rueda, 2011). Effective teachers promote
student achievement by utilizing multiple strategies to help students acquire knowledge,
concepts, and skills (Saphier, Haley-Speca, & Gower, 2008; Schneider and Evers, 2009;
Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). A teacher’s willingness to identify,
implement, and assess a variety of strategies to meet a wide range of student needs defines that
teacher’s disposition and beliefs, especially with students who present differences or challenges.
Formal teacher evaluations use measures of student achievement on standardized assessments to
assign effectiveness values to the student’s teacher (Lockwood et al., 2007). This formal
emphasis can create an environment of high-stakes testing pressure or anxiety (Lee, 2008).
Therefore, this study seeks to examine the relationship between teachers’ dispositions towards
and beliefs about students who may be at-risk for underachievement and how or why they do or
do not consider the effect this may have on their own professional evaluations.
Background
A revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), shifted political and educational focus from student, teacher, and funding inputs
to teacher and student performance outcomes (Wiess, 2010, p. 110). Federal and state mandates
utilize standardized, high-stakes assessments to measure student achievement and to exercise
economic control over educational districts and systems (Lee, 2008, p. 608). Lee (2008)
emphasized that students are expected to maintain proficiency or higher on standardized
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

8
assessments, and annually teachers are expected to add value to student achievement on these
high-stakes assessments. As a result, education reformers promote the connections made
between student achievement scores on standardized assessments and teacher effectiveness.
States and districts throughout the United States have begun to realign evaluation systems to
emphasize teacher accountability connected to student achievement on standardized assessments
(Lockwood et al., 2007, p. 47; Torlakson, 2012).
Legislation under NCLB preceded the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative. The RTTT
initiative provided state and district financial incentives based on school performance and student
achievement (Grossman, Loeb, Cohen, & Wyckoff, 2013; Rueda, 2011, p. 6). Formal teacher
evaluations became integrally linked to student achievement through elements of educational
reform initiatives under NCLB and RTTT. Results of students’ achievements and teachers’
evaluations can be used to compensate teachers and schools that perform well and sanction
schools identified as underperforming (Jacob & Walsh, 2011; Lee, 2008). While informal
evaluations rely on subjective observations by administrators and teacher leaders (Jacob &
Walsh, 2011, p. 434), legislative emphasis upon teacher evaluations has led districts to adopt
formalized evaluation systems.
One example of a formal evaluation system utilized by many districts to measure the
value of a teacher is Value-added modeling (VAM). “Value-added” uses students’ prior
standardized test scores along with current achievement to predict future performance as
influenced by teacher effectiveness (Harris, 2011, p. 826). Other versions of VAM exist, such as
the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Added Growth over Time (AGT). Both utilize high-
stakes test scores of students to measure teacher effectiveness. Hanushek (2010) raised concerns
related to fluctuation of scores and the utilization of value-added modeling to measure teachers’
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

9
effectiveness. Student test achievement used as a measurement of true student knowledge and
growth, and factors surrounding high-stakes testing situations are vulnerable to test errors, which
may bias teacher-value estimates (Hanushek, 2010, p. 268). Other concerns about utilizing
current teacher evaluative measures relate to factors outside school, which teachers cannot
control.
McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, and Hamilton (2004) described current evaluative
measures that have the potential to separate teacher and school effects on student achievement
from outside factors such as students’ socioeconomic differences (p. 2). They contend that
factors such as student socioeconomic status do not influence assessment outcomes and therefore
teachers’ evaluation scores. Lockwood et al. (2007) reiterated that current evaluative measures
differentiate educational inputs from non-educational inputs related to student achievement (p.
52). Therefore, teachers are expected to meet the needs of all students regardless of their
learning challenges, leading Harris (2011) to state that further research of current evaluative
measures may determine if education for all students can be improved through such mandates (p.
827). Wainer (2011) argued that current evaluative models “...are still not ready for full-scale
implementation” (p. 13).
How teachers consider their students and address their learning needs reveals
dispositional characteristics. This requires cohesion between what teachers say and do. Delpit
(2012) listed dispositional characteristics such as patience, willingness to understand students
personally, and effortful differentiation of instruction as qualities of a teacher who can
effectively teach students presenting a wide variety of differences (p. 76). By displaying these
dispositions an effective teacher may project an inclusive attitude toward all students regarding
learning and instruction. Teacher responsibility for student achievement has gained momentum,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

10
become institutionalized, and remains irrevocable. Hallinan (2008) identified teachers as most
influential in determining the degree to which students like school (p. 272). Students who like
school are motivated to attend, participate, and achieve. Mayer (2011) identified student
motivation as internal, instigative, amenable to the fostering of persistence, and achievement
oriented (p. 39). Teachers, who support students on social-emotional as well as academic levels
and hold high expectations, positively influence students’ perceptions of self and school
(Hallinan, 2008, pp. 272-273).
Statement of the Problem
Current evaluations rate teachers based upon student achievement; yet student
achievement remains influenced by factors that teachers may or may not be able to control.
Teachers who have large numbers of inclusion students, may face more difficulty raising student
achievement to levels of proficient or higher. Low student achievement scores may suggest that
teachers have not done their jobs. Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) raised concerns regarding
current evaluative measures, classroom assignments and teachers. The concerns relate to
students presenting learning challenges where “…any failure to account for sorting on
unobservable characteristics would potentially penalize teachers given unobservably [sic] more
difficult classrooms and reward teachers given unobservably [sic] less difficult classrooms”
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010, p. 270). Researchers site the non-randomization of classroom
assignments as negatively affecting teachers’ evaluative scores (Hanushcek & Rivkin, 2010;
Wainer, 2011). Therefore, the process and format of current evaluations may discourage or
punish teachers who teach students with a wide range of learning challenges.
Proponents of current evaluative measures maintain that outside factors influencing
student achievement are accounted for and do not influence teacher evaluations (Anderman,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

11
Anderman, Yough & Gimbert, 2010; Lockwood, et al., 2007; McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, &
Hamilton, 2004). Doran and Lockwood (2006) stated students’ test score data “attempt to
identify the unique contributions of schools or teachers” (pp. 205-206). The challenge for
teachers becomes that of meeting student needs which transcend academic abilities and
socioeconomic and demographic factors. The question remains of how certain dispositional
make-ups of successful teachers help address student differences in an effort to improve student
achievement; with or without regard for any influences and pressures from teacher evaluative
measures.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the practices of teachers in inclusion classrooms,
and contribute to the broader literature an understanding of the dispositions of teachers who
teach students presenting a wide range of learning needs. It attempts to investigate the extent to
which evaluative methods influence these teachers’ dispositions towards and choice of
instructional practices with a wide range of students. The purpose presupposes certain
dispositions exist in teachers who effectively teach students presenting learning and behavioral
challenges. The researcher intends to provide answers to a number of questions, including: Do
these all-inclusive teachers take a student-centered approach or do the pressures of evaluations
drive their instructional practice? How do these teachers view themselves and what drives their
choice and range of instructional practices? Through a survey, interviews, and observations, the
researcher plans to examine the answers to these questions in relationship to teachers’
performances and their formal evaluations.
The incumbency of improving student achievement placed upon the teaching profession
derives from expectations that teachers are responsible for student achievement. However,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

12
teacher characteristics specific to successful student achievement have been difficult to identify
(Hanushek, 2010, p. 3). The dynamic and complex relationship between teachers and students
influences both students’ achievement and teachers’ performance. Students’ achievements in
turn influence teachers’ evaluations. A teacher’s current evaluated quality, students’ learning
challenges, and students’ test achievements each have mutual and reciprocal influence upon the
process of teaching and learning (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

Sociocultural Learning Theory describes teaching and learning as a joint effort utilizing a
range of activities to promote acquisition of knowledge, problem solving, and critical thinking
skills (Scott & Palincsar, 2010, p. 1). The purpose of the current study emphasizes the degree to
which teachers’ dispositional characteristics compelled them to adapt instructional approaches,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

13
change practices, and work to meet the needs of all students; particularly students who present
learning challenges. According to Vygotsky’s research, students and teachers engage in teaching
and learning as part of a social construct. Students co-construct knowledge in social contexts
and challenge proximal abilities with assistance from those who are more knowledgeable
(Rueda, 2011; Smagorinsky, 2013). The social nature of teaching and learning promotes
collaborative approaches in daily classroom activities. An inclusive community provides a
variety of approaches to teaching and learning where learners’ prior knowledge is acknowledged
while introducing what is to be learned, and providing teacher and student feedback through
ongoing assessments (The National Research Council [NRC], 2005, pp. 14-20). These concepts
are more readily adopted by teachers who have certain dispositions amenable to adaptation and
integration of the described critical changes.
In the context of a sociocultural approach a range of instructional strategies may help
vulnerable students achieve academic proficiency or higher. In addition to using a range of
strong instructional strategies, teacher characteristics include: 1) understanding the difference
between equity and equality; 2) engaging students strategically by understanding power
dynamics; 3) teachers immersing themselves into the student’s culture; 4) understanding
differences and similarities between themselves as teachers and their students; 5) allowing
students to make meaningful connections with teachers on personal levels; and 6)
acknowledging, creating, and respecting the classroom community within the context of a larger
community (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 598). In this way the foundations of Sociocultural
Learning Theory provides a framework for the present research in that it promotes inclusive
teaching practices that respect diversity and differences as important and integral to all learning
environments.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

14
Research Questions
The research questions illustrate the interaction of teacher dispositions, student
differences, and evaluative outcomes. The expectations of meeting the needs of all students
increases the responsibility placed on teachers by evaluative measures. Evaluative measures rely
upon student achievement on standardized tests to determine teacher effectiveness. The goal of
this research is to discover how teachers meet this responsibility in light of influences of current
evaluative measures. This research is guided by the following questions:
1. What are the dispositions of teachers who address the varying needs of students in an
inclusive classroom?
a. To what extent do these teachers perceive evaluative processes as influencing
their practice?
b. What are the correlations between dispositions and objective evaluative
scores?
Significance of the Study
This research contributes to the current literature and ongoing public dialogue related to
teacher evaluations. It provides qualitative teacher perspectives about student achievement and
teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened teacher accountability. The research in this study
looks at the relationship between teachers’ dispositions towards students who are at-risk for
underachievement and teacher evaluations. Specifically, focus remains upon effective
dispositions and successful interactional qualities of teachers who work with students presenting
learning challenges.
A secondary goal of this study is to understand how current evaluative measures impact
teachers’ dispositions. Do these teachers know, care about, or teach beyond their evaluative
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

15
scores? Numerous factors contribute to how teachers conduct classrooms and how students
achieve. Teachers in inclusive classrooms support students with a variety of learning needs and
challenges. The combination of learners in some classrooms present more challenges than
others. Yet teachers in all classrooms are held to the same expectations of raising all students’
achievement on standardized assessments. Hanushek (2010) described “unobservable” factors
such as more difficult versus less difficult classrooms and students (p. 270). These factors and
their consequences upon student achievement and teacher performance must be acknowledged
and considered in relation to the current climate of high-stakes testing.
No individual teacher holds absolute influence over student achievement, but certain
dispositions of some teachers positively influence student achievement. This study is significant
because it seeks to identify what dispositional characteristics inclusive educators hold in widely
diverse academic, and behavioral classroom settings within a high-achieving school in Southern
California.
Limitations and Delimitations
Observations and follow-up interviews were limited to one school site. Rueda (2011)
stated that context specific strategies may not generalize to other settings or may work in other
settings for different reasons (p. 91). Interviews and observations were limited each to one hour
per teacher participant. The researcher’s bias related to teacher evaluations is a noteworthy
limitation. The researcher is a practicing elementary teacher who works with students presenting
learning challenges and who is evaluated. Maxwell (2013) understated bias as an inseparable
consequence to experiential knowledge of the researcher (p. 44). The researcher’s prior
experience and knowledge serve as instrumental to data collection in qualitative research
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 45). Glesne (2011) advised about the political nature inherent with
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

16
presenting data and research through writing. Researchers must be cognizant of descriptive or
interpretive writing as separate from judgment of results (Glesne, 2011, p. 239). Other
limitations may apply to survey and interview responses as they hinge upon teachers’ self-report.
Selection of the district, school site, and teachers promoted delimitations to the study.
The current study utilized non-probability or purposeful sampling as opposed to probability or
random sampling. Observed and interviewed teachers were selected based upon inclusive
practices and classroom demographics. Merriam (2009) described purposeful sampling to be an
approach where the researcher selects a sample where the most can be learned (p. 77). The
researcher chose the specific school site in which to conduct surveys, interviews, and
observations because of the school’s reputation for providing inclusive education for a wide
range of learners.
Definition of Terms
504 Plan — Legislated anti-discriminatory workplace practices protecting individuals
with disabilities. Teachers recommended to adapt and modify instruction to provide equitable
access to curriculum (Laprairie, Johnson, Rice, Adams, & Higgins, 2010; & Obiakor et al.,
2012).
Current Evaluative Measures — Methods of teacher evaluation reliant upon student
achievement scores from standardized assessments (Harris, 2011; Hanushek, 2010; Lockwood et
al., 2007; McCaffrey et al. 2004).
Inclusive Education — Education of students identified having disabilities “…with their
peers without disabilities in…” general education classrooms (Obiakor et al., 2012).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) — Formalized education plan for students who
qualify for special education services. (Laprairie et al., 2010).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

17
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — “…the federal law that establishes
the right to free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) for all children regardless of the nature or
severity of their disabilities” (Laprairie et al., 2010, p. 1).
Least Restrictive Environment — “…delivery of special education services should occur
in the general education classroom to the maximum extent appropriate…” (Laprairie et al., 2010,
p. 26).
Teacher Disposition — Teacher-held attitudes, assumptions, biases, predispositions,
stereotypes and efforts toward students (Harris, 2012; McHugh, Horner, Colditz, and Wallace,
2013).
Students Presenting Learning Challenges — Student needs and challenges presented to
teachers in the form of student: abilities, attitudes, dispositions, efforts, efficacy, motivation, and
aspirations towards teaching and learning (Parcel, Campbell, & Zhong, 2012; & Smith,
Cavanaugh, & Moore, 2011).
Structural Inequity — Institutional segregation (Delpit, 2012; Hughes & North, 2011;
Palmer, 2010).
Teacher Evaluation — Formal, such as Value Added Modeling (VAM), and informal,
such as subjective principal, observations (Harris, 2011).
Student Achievement — Student performance as measured on standardized assessments
(Lee, 2008).
Marginal Students — Students who underachieve academically and are perceived as less
capable to achieve (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 566).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Public awareness surrounding teacher accountability increased during the turn of the 21
st

Century (Harris, 2011). Districts across the United States realigned and instituted measures of
teacher evaluation linking student achievement to teacher value. The most recent consecutive
presidential administrations introduced high-stakes teacher accountability initiatives based upon
student performance on standardized assessments (Christenson, Decker, Triezenberg, Ysseldyke,
& Reschly, 2007, p. 663). The era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ushered in teacher
accountabilities on multiple levels. Compensatory efforts financially reward districts, schools,
and teachers based upon improvements in teacher performances as reflected in student
achievement through components of the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative. Student
performances on standardized tests are used to measure teacher effectiveness and how they add
value to student achievement.
Darling-Hammond (2000 & 2007) emphasized that what teachers know and are able to
do influences student achievement. What teachers know includes content-specific knowledge,
knowledge of curricular standards, and knowledge of pedagogical practices. Teacher knowledge
and ability transcend specific academic knowledge, content knowledge and student ability.
Teachers who hold themselves accountable for student achievement ask how education systems
fail typically marginalized students (Haddix, 2010, p. 343). As an example Haddix (2010) called
for an end to the stereotypical treatment of African American students; particularly male
students. This perspective resonates through critical race theory, and social justice teaching.
Teachers’ perspectives influence the relationships established with students. The relationship
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

19
between students and their teachers impacts achievement. Teachers must establish rapport with
their students, understand classroom dynamics and environmental nuances, and respond to
differing student needs. Teachers’ content knowledge, subject-specific prowess, and
relationships with students go beyond effective classroom practice to include teacher
dispositions. Teachers’ dispositions influence how they perceive who and where they teach.
Urban school settings which are likely to have the highest percentages of
underperforming schools, have the greatest need for effective teachers. Torlakson (2012)
described factors contributing to teacher effectiveness: full credentials, competency in subject-
matter, National Board Certification, at least two years’ experience, and high performance on
licensure tests (p. 23). Urban school settings lack teachers matching these descriptions. Peske
and Haycock (2006) raised concerns related to teacher distribution and minority students in
underperforming schools. The needs of students at-risk of underachievement raise concerns
related to structural equity (Peske & Haycock, 2006, p. 11). Teacher effectiveness with students
at-risk of underachievement prompts current research.
Reflecting upon their own practice, teachers must consider the needs of students who
present learning challenges and the effects upon student achievement. A number of factors
impact students who present learning challenges. Diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities
require teachers to differentiate instructions, modify assignments, and adjust behavior
expectations within the classroom. Classroom management involves strategies teachers utilize to
mitigate disruptions that prohibit access to the curriculum. The use of technology impacts
student expectations, entitlements, and achievements on daily, and often moment to moment,
bases. McAlister (2009) described the Millennial Generation as team-work oriented, confident,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

20
and technologically facile (p. 14). Careful attention must be paid to fostering student abilities in
the technological era while providing care to avoid disruptions of multi-tasking.
What teachers know and do with students who present learning challenges is explored in
the following literature review. Teacher accountability, inclusion classrooms, students who
present learning challenges, students at-risk, teacher dispositions, and structural inequity serve as
separate yet connected categories for this literature review. Each section is reviewed in
ascending order by publishing date.
Teacher Accountability
The “No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB) is a reauthorized version of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Set in place are provisions to measure students’
achievements and determine school outcomes by 2014 (Fuhrman, 2004, p. 5). Lack of student
progress is considered non-compliance and will result in consequences. Fuhrman (2004)
prescribed American businesses as the model for education with an emphasis on student output.
It is assumed focus on achievement and consequences for non-compliance will motivate teachers
at the school level to meet compliance requirements of NCLB (Fuhrman, 2004, p. 6).
Braun (2005) claimed the impossibility of removing all factors influencing students’
performances on assessments used to gauge a teacher’s effectiveness. The confluence of
influential factors upon students’ performances makes it difficult to rate teachers or identify what
accounts for effectiveness (p. 11). Braun (2005) disclaimed the practice of randomization related
to Value Added Measures (VAM) and true evaluation. VAM is one method of teacher
evaluation utilized by districts within the United States. Parents may exercise influence over
student’s placements in classrooms. Teacher tenure can assure teachers’ placements. Placement
of students whose misbehavior disrupts the learning environment interferes with evaluative
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

21
processes. Braun (2005) raised concern over inevitable variability in teachers’ scores due to
randomization, or student/cohort make-up (p. 10). Concerns related to validity refer to
measurement between standards and assessment. Braun (2005) exemplified and questioned
assessments of students’ writing abilities through multiple choice formats (p. 14). Braun (2005)
recommended evaluative measures be used to assist teachers recognized as needing
improvement. Professional development, in-service, and pre-service teacher programs are the
recommended institutional efforts to assist teachers (Braun, 2005, p. 16).
High stakes assessment scores used to evaluate teachers can also inform classroom
practices. Christenson, Decker, Triezenberg, Ysseldyke, and Reschly (2007) conducted
descriptive studies to examine teachers’ and other education professionals’ perspectives on the
effects of high-stakes assessments upon two groups of students. Christenson et al. (2007)
compared educator perspectives on students with disabilities and students without disabilities (p.
662). Overall intended benefits of high-stakes testing include rigorous standards, improved
student achievement, equitable access to education, increased family involvement, and
community support (Christenson, Decker, Triezenberg, Ysseldyke, & Reschly, 2007, p. 663).
High-stakes assessments can be used to set standards for all students’ achievements. Unintended
consequences diminish benefits. Unintended consequences include environments where critical
thinking and problem solving become secondary achievement goals to testing preparedness
(Christenson, et al., 2007, p. 665). Student motivation may also suffer, especially considering
students with learning disabilities who succumb to unintended pressures of high-stakes
environments (Christenson, et al., 2007, p. 669). A majority of respondents to survey questions
perceived high-stakes assessments benefit all students (Christenson, et al., 2007, p. 674). This
perception implies increased instructional effort as a result of utilized high-stakes assessments
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

22
(Christenson, et al., 2007, p. 686). Although respondents perceived no change in student
motivation resulting from high-stakes assessments, qualitative research involving students’
perspectives would complement this study (Christenson, et al., 2007 p. 687).
Darling-Hammond (2007) acknowledged “counterincentives” of NCLB (p. 654).
According to Darling-Hammond (2007), NCLB identifies students with special needs as English
Language Learners (ELL) and students with disabilities (p. 657). Effective teachers make
specific efforts to support students struggling to succeed. The efforts include the creation of
smaller learning communities and personalized instruction. Teachers adapt to the needs of their
students utilizing multiple instructional strategies (Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 645). Strategies
involve collaboration between special education teachers and general education teachers. The
integrative supplementary efforts run counter to traditional tracking methods which have been
found to disenfranchise and segregate students who underperform. Darling-Hammond (2007)
advocated rating teachers as highly qualified once competency has been demonstrated (p. 662).
This suggests teacher evaluations can measure competency through objective and subjective
measures. Darling-Hammond’s (2007) advocacy correlated with Hanucheck’s (2010) findings
related to teacher performance.
Smyth (2008) analyzed NCLB six years after enactment. The research focus remained
upon minority, English Learner (EL), special needs, and lower Socio-Economic Status (SES)
students (Smyth, 2008, p. 133). According to Smyth (2008), NCLB has legislative flaws.
NCLB is inappropriate to students’ developmental levels, poorly funded, and can potentially
leave students behind academically (Smyth, 2008, p. 133). The high-stakes testing climate of
NCLB creates environments where teachers may forego teaching critical thinking and higher
order thinking skills. Teaching to the test sacrifices creativity in lesson design, innovation in
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

23
instruction, differentiation of instruction, and motivation to teach and learn (Smyth, 2008, p.
134). Smyth (2008) explained that the high-stakes testing climate affects students of greatest
need negatively. An exodus of qualified teachers from low-performing into high-performing
schools may result as teacher autonomy and professionalism are removed (Smyth, 2008, p. 134).
Limiting teachers’ decision-making powers reduces authentic instruction leading to lowered
student self-efficacy and motivation (Smyth, 2008, p. 134). Smyth (2008) cited teachers’
opinions regarding high-stakes testing climates. Imbalanced curriculum, disproportionate
pressures upon certain grade levels, and decreased teacher retention rates lead to observable,
“…physical, psychological, or emotional symptoms…” for students (Smyth, 2008, p. 135).
Smyth (2008) recommends site-based accountability similar to systems used in higher education.
Public school accountability plans would include self-evaluative systems, site visitations, and
site improvement plans guided and informed by each state (Smyth, p. 136). Such measures may
prove to be cost-prohibitive.
Jacob and Walsh (2010) correlated principals’ subjective evaluations to teachers’ VAM
scores and teaching dispositions. Dispositions included observable and unobservable aspects of
productivity. The term productivity served as proxy to credentials, experience, and absenteeism
(Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 447). A strong correlation was found related to principals’ abilities to
determine effectiveness (Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 435). According to research, principals
accurately identify most and least effective teachers, but have less accuracy differentiating the
teachers who fall in the middle (Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 434). Teachers who held strong
credentials, more educational backgrounds, had more experience, and who were infrequently
absent rated higher during principal evaluations (Jacob & Walsh, 2010, pp. 439-446). Accuracy
in ratings correlated with teachers effectiveness scores. However some of the factors rated by
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

24
principals may not relate directly to student achievement (Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 447). This
emphasizes the dimensionality of principals’ responsibilities related to teacher evaluations.
Jacob and Walsh (2010) described attempts to mitigate inherent biases in the study. Principals’
discretions exercised to determine observable and unobservable teacher characteristics or to elect
or not elect to observe certain teachers potentially skew results (Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 438).
To counter biases, the researchers included wide-ranging teacher demographic and background
information in the study. The subjective aspect of principals’ qualitative evaluations may
highlight characteristics of teacher quality not accounted for through quantitative measures
(Jacob & Walsh, 2010, p. 448).
National awareness of teacher value popularized efforts to identify effective and
ineffective teachers. Rockoff and Speroni (2010) examined how subjective and objective
measures of teacher evaluations determine the impact of new teachers upon student achievement
(p. 261). Rockoff and Speroni (2010) advised that “… ‘value-added’ measures of effectiveness
are noisy and can be biased if some teachers are persistently given students that are difficult to
teach in ways that are hard to observe” (p. 261). During analysis, Rockoff and Speroni (2010)
found new teachers more likely to be young, have minimal experience, not have graduate
degrees beyond a credential, and be assigned students who represent minorities and have low
standardized test achievements (p. 263). Implications relate to high turnover rate among new
teachers. Value-added estimates correlated strongly between mentor evaluations and a teacher’s
first and second year influence upon student achievement (Rockoff & Speroni, 2010, p. 264).
Positive mentor evaluations of new teachers corresponded with positive influence on student
achievement. Rockoff and Speroni (2010) advised that evaluative measures must include
subjective and objective data (p. 264). Combined evaluative systems allow for improvement in
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

25
teacher quality. Mentors and administrators conduct subjective evaluations with a degree of
autonomy. Addressing implementation of subjective evaluations requires further research into
the implications of cohesive subjective measures.
Looney (2011) juxtaposed most effective and least effective teacher qualities in relation
to student achievement. A succession of highly effective teachers may benefit low-income
students the most allowing them the opportunity to achieve at levels of high-income peers
(Looney, 2011, p. 440). A succession of least effective teachers may create gaps in achievement
which cannot be closed by highly effective teachers in later grades (Looney, 2011, p. 440).
Focus on teacher quality includes evaluative measures, but must also include professional
developments responsive to teachers’ needs. Improvement in teacher quality occurs with
alignment of evaluative systems and professional development trainings (Looney, 2011, p. 440).
Teacher quality includes intellectual ability, deep knowledge of subject matters taught, and
strong management and assessment skills (Looney, 2011, p. 441). Among the defining
characteristics of high quality teacher characteristics, Looney (2011) included student-teacher
relationships. Teachers who support achievement empathize with their students and make
emotional connections that motivate learning. In contrast, teachers who lower expectations
negatively impact student achievement (Looney, 2011, p. 441). Looney (2011) advised against
rigidity in evaluative alignment. Evaluative systems need to include opportunities for teachers to
develop skills over long terms and benefit from peer input (Looney, 2011, p. 443). A shift in
perspective related to teacher evaluations occurs when measures allow for growth and
improvement. Looney (2011) described school-wide appraisal and evaluations contribute to
teacher quality and student achievement (p. 446). Policy implementation must include measures
to improve teacher quality (Looney, 2011, p. 450).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

26
Polikoff (2012) investigated teachers’ alignment to state standards in practice as a result
of NCLB (p. 341). Standards-based reform (SBR) policies resulted from enactment of NCLB.
Improved student achievement is the outcome of SBR measures (Polikoff, 2012, p. 361).
Approximately 80-90 percent of teachers across the country and across grade levels self-reported
alignments of instruction to their state standards (Polikoff, 2012, p. 362). Polikoff (2012)
examined teachers’ reports related to NCLB and SBR. Concerns related to validity, reliability,
and misalignments were addressed. Statements of alignment may be misperceived due to
overstated and understated reporting, state standards and district policy conflicts, teachers’
misunderstanding of content specifications, and methodologies of alignment (Polikoff, 2012, p.
345). Polikoff’s (2012) findings lend moderate support to the theory of change related to NCLB.
This investigation did not measure instructional quality as a result of alignment to state standards
(Polikoff, 2012, p. 363). Recommendations to policy makers support aligning Common Core
State Standards to teaching materials, curriculum, and assessments (Polikoff, 2012, p. 364).
Further quantitative research matching teachers’ self-reports of instructional alignment to
standards and teacher evaluations would lend validity to this research.
Teachers exercise significant influence over student achievement and learning. Kersting,
Givvin, Thompson, Santagata, and Stigler (2012) attempted to disambiguate the symbiosis
among what teachers know, their practice, and student learning (p. 569). Teachers’ responded to
surveys related to viewings of recorded mathematics lessons. Kersting et al. (2012) recorded
teachers’ analyses as Classroom Video Assessments (CVA). Teachers’ responses evidenced
knowledge related to the Mathematics Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) (Kersting, Givvin,
Thompson, Santagata, & Stigler, 2012, p. 571). Strong relationships existed between teachers’
scores on MKT assessment and their surveyed analyses of video recordings (Kersting et al.,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

27
2012, p. 572). Teachers’ MKT scores and CVA results did not correlate directly with improved
student achievement. Kersting et al. (2012) correlated student achievement gains with teachers
who utilized suggestions for improved practice stemming from analyzed recordings (p. 573).
Implications emphasized explicit efforts by teachers to improve quality of instruction. Student
achievement gains linked indirectly to teacher knowledge, yet teacher knowledge served as a
predictor of the quality of instruction (Kersting, et al., 2012, p. 583). Quality of instruction
linked strongly to student achievement gains. Teachers who experienced these gains used their
knowledge and suggested feedback to improve classroom practices. However, suggested
feedback and student achievement did not correlate strongly (Kersting, et al., 2012, p. 586).
Kersting et al. (2012) considered their results preliminary and suggested further research
utilizing CVA and MKT methods within different contexts (p. 588). Ongoing research will
deepen understandings of what teachers know and do in relation to students’ learning and
achievement. Students’ learning needs vary in the context of any classroom, particularly in
inclusion classrooms.
Inclusion Classrooms
Inclusive classroom practices require teachers to understand multiple contributors that
exclude and diminish student access to equitable education. Preece (2006) described the
multidimensionality of poverty as a cycle of exclusion that students, who may have special
needs, experience in schools. The multidimensionality of poverty includes limits to what
individuals are capable of doing, deprivation of opportunities, and the consequences of
institutional practices (Preece, 2006, pp. 149-150). Education on national and international
scales remains a contributing institution to the cycle of exclusion. Preece (2006) juxtaposed the
dual contribution education may play in the promotion or deconstruction of the cycle of poverty.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

28
Preece (2006) focused on inclusive education through broader lenses of governmental and policy
factors. While a starting point is necessary, further research is required to address individual
instances involving the cycle of poverty and exclusion in education. Individual teacher and
student perspectives were not addressed in this research.
Inclusive education is a social justice issue effecting both individuals and the larger
society (Berry, 2008, p. 1050). Students enrolled in inclusive classrooms include general
education and mainstreamed students with special needs and disabilities. Berry (2008) studied
novice teachers’ attitudes regarding the concept of fairness and the inclusion of students with
disabilities in the context of the mainstream classroom. Berry (2008) argued that teachers’
attitudes influenced teachers’ behaviors and practices toward students with disabilities (p. 1149).
It was implied that teachers’ attitudes stem from specific philosophies which can be influenced
by teacher preparation programs (Berry, 2008, p. 1157). Teacher preparation programs can
challenge notions of fairness, expand the concept of fairness, and help novice teachers attribute
students’ needs to factors that can be changed. The implication is, that dispositions which
attribute students’ abilities as unchangeable, static, and related to individual characteristics,
oppose the social justice practice of inclusion (Berry, 2008, 1158). This study relied upon novice
teachers’ self-reports and did not include observations linking what respondents said to their
practices. Further research linking reports to observations can provide comprehensive
perspectives on teachers’ notions of fairness and inclusive educational practices.
LaPrairie, Johnson, Rice, Adams, and Higgins (2010) described inclusive classroom
practices to be mandated by legal rights of students with special needs and proposed that novice
teachers need to be prepared to accommodate and modify instructions to provide equitable
access to the curriculum (p. 28). Legal ramifications of the Individuals with Disabilities
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

29
Education Act (IDEA) address how policies prohibit any form of discrimination that would
prevent a student holding an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 Plan from receiving
education in the general classroom (LaPrairie, Johnson, Rice, Adams, &Higgins, 2010,p. 25).
Disabled students are to be educated with non-disabled peers. A range of disabilities exist, one
of which a student must have, in order to qualify for services through special education and hold
an IEP. Although the 504 Plan was designed to protect individuals in the workplace, it provides
for students for certain services who do not qualify for an IEP (LaPrairie et al., 2010, p. 26). An
IEP is developed by a school-based team comprised of administrators, parents, general education
teachers, and special education teachers. It is a formalized plan for students specific to their
disabilities in which a general education teacher must abide to provide access to the “least
restrictive” learning environment (LaPrairie et al., 2010, p. 27). Implications of the advice
composed by LaPrairie et al. (2010) explicitly establish all teachers as responsible for the
education of all students. General education teachers no longer transfer students with special
needs out of the mainstream classroom (La Prairie et al., 2010, p. 30). Further research
examining the beliefs, trainings, and practices of general education teachers will inform the
paradigmatic shift of teacher accountability with all students in public education. It is advised
that further research be conducted regarding how teachers are professionally developed around
inclusion of students with special needs in the general education classroom.
De Boer, Timmerman, Pijl, and Minnaert (2012) utilized a Mokken scale to analyze
students’, their parents, and their teachers’ questionnaire responses regarding inclusion practices
in the mainstream classroom (p. 573). The researchers attempted to collect evidence of
individual attitudes towards inclusion. Data collection occurred during multiple stages utilizing
a variety of questionnaire scales (de Boer, Timmerman, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2012, p. 583).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

30
Questionnaires were adapted, and items which proved to be inappropriate for the context were
eliminated or rewritten (de Boer et al., 2012, p. 584). Questionnaire responses indicated that
respondents perceived inclusion practices to remain difficult to implement and that wide
acceptance of such measures in the mainstream classroom is gaining acceptance only gradually
(de Boer et al., 2012, p. 587). These findings support research that suggests attitudes towards
inclusion impede practice (de Boer et al., 2012, p. 574). “Few studies use attitudes to predict or
explain teacher and student behavior” (de Boer et al., 2012, p. 587). de Boer et al. (2012)
recommended ongoing research utilizing their instrument tool in an effort to report changing
attitudes towards inclusive education (p. 588).
Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, and Rotatori (2012) discussed the imperative of general and
special education teachers collaborating to provide inclusive education with consideration of
students who have disabilities (p. 477). According to the researchers, the social justice premise
of inclusion outweighs perceived impracticalities associated with modifying and adapting
instructions and assignments to meet varying needs of all students (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, &
Rotatori, 2012). No longer is the first step of special education to separate students with
disabilities from non-disabled peers into restricted environments. As a federal law, IDEA
established that all students must receive instruction in the least restrictive environment.
Students who receive “…special education must be educated with their peers without disabilities
to the maximum extent possible and appropriate” (Obiakor et al., 2012, p. 479). The goal of
inclusion is to consider all practical accommodations where general education teachers
“diversify” instructional and assignment expectations for students mainstreamed in the general
educational setting (Obiakor et al., 2012, p. 482). IDEA and federal provisions of IEPs and 504
Plans require teachers to follow prescribed efforts to accommodate students’ needs through
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

31
instruction and lesson modifications. Assistance through instructional aides is provided when
necessary (Obiakor et al., 2012). Teachers’ dispositions factor into how students with disabilities
are perceived, and how inclusive instructional decisions are made or ignored. Obiakor et al.
(2012) listed sociocultural, linguistic, and individual differences as those not to be misconstrued
with disabilities and special needs (p. 481). The researchers’ premise relayed that students with
special needs are contributing community members, equal to their non-disabled peers. Focus
remained upon accommodations and modifications general and special education teachers can
exercise to meet all students’ needs, however support systems are necessary (Obiakor et al., p.
487). Further research exploring the dispositions of administrators and other school personnel
will add to this highly debated and federally mandated practice of inclusion. Regardless of
perceived difficulties, teachers who exercise inclusionary practices work to assist students who
present learning challenges.
Griffin, League, Griffin, and Bae (2013) identified students who experience mathematics
learning disabilities (MLD) to comprise 8% and students “…who have significant deficits…” in
mathematics to include 35% of learners within the inclusive classroom context (p. 9). These
statistics suggest that teachers in inclusion classrooms may find 40% or more of their students to
struggle with math-related learning challenges. In this study, the researchers examined teaching
practices and student learning in an inclusion mathematics course. This study supported current
research stating teachers’ knowledge of the content as imperative to student achievement levels
(Griffin, League, Griffin, & Bae, 2013, p. 15). Another important finding supported the
imperative of teachers’ pedagogical practices. Teachers who lack understanding in how to
strategically arrange learners in supportive and cooperative learning pairs or small groups avoid
this strategy altogether, or use it to the detriment of not progressing low-performers’
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

32
achievements (Griffin et al., 2013, p. 15). Tentative findings suggest that mathematics
instruction in inclusive classrooms relies upon direct instruction, strategic intervention, re-
teaching, hands-on interactive experiences, and less upon peer mentoring (Griffin et al., 2013, p.
18). The researchers suggested that future studies on the same topic involve larger populations
and correlate findings to teacher professional developments for the purpose of generalization
(Griffin et al., 2013, p. 18). Griffin et al. (2013) implied that this future research will lend
support to understanding teachers’ dispositions along with their pedagogical knowledge and
practices (p. 19). Cross-curricular studies may also lend to generalizability of future findings.
More than two-thirds of students receiving special education services under IDEA are
included in science instruction in general education classes (Watt, Therrien, Kaldenberg, &
Taylor, 2013, p. 41). These statistics suggest that a substantial percentage of participants in the
inclusion classroom have learning challenges. Watt, Therrien, Kaldenberg, and Taylor (2013)
attributed successes of inclusionary practices to the interactive hands-on nature of science
instruction. The researchers promoted inquiry-based science instruction to include explicit and
direct instruction, which supports findings by Griffin et al. (2013). Another attribution to the
success of structured inquiry-based science instruction involves general and special education
teacher collaboration (Watt et al., 2013, p. 42). Successful practices included collaborative
efforts among teachers, lessons focused on big ideas, support of vocabulary development for the
purposes of guiding students’ contextual conversations, acknowledgement of students’ prior
knowledge, provision of scaffolds with the intent of gradually removing them, and reliance upon
assessments to guide instructions (Watt et al., 2013, pp. 44-47). The research and findings
collected by Watt et al. (2013) may transfer to all content areas of instruction. Further research
regarding inquiry-based instruction in other curricular contexts is recommended.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

33
Students Who Present Learning Challenges
Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, and Martin (2007) examined the effects of a reading
intervention program on four middle school students. Two were identified as having severe
emotional behavior disorders (EBD) and two identified with learning disabilities. The
interventions observed included repetitious readings. Participants conducting the intervention
addressed reading errors systematically and provided students feedback about their fluency and
comprehension levels (Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, & Martin, 2007, p. 25). A functional
connection was made between error corrections, student feedback, and ongoing repetitious
readings. Students showed immediate improvements in reading fluency, comprehension, and
reduction in errors. Students opined their appreciation for the reading materials, timing process,
and one-on-one attention and attributed these measures to their progress. Alber-Morgan et al.
(2007) indicated the novelty and one-on-one attention of the process as possible factors
accounting for students’ compliance and reduced disruptive behavior (p. 27). Transfer of the
four students’ successes with this program was not observed outside the context of the
intervention. The small sample limits how the findings can be generalized. The authors
recommend enlisting the assistance of peers, classroom aids, and volunteers to promote this
successful method of repetitious reading with feedback that may result in lowered disruptive
behavior among students with EBD (Alber-Morgan et al., 2007, p. 29).
Researchers attempt to correlate student achievement with attendance rates. Sheldon
(2007) used a quasi-experimental design to focus on elementary school students’ attendance
from one year to the next. Consistent daily attendance rates of individual students resulted in
higher achievement on standardized assessments (Sheldon, 2007, p. 267). Concurrently, Sheldon
(2007) found that schools with consistent attendance rates overall generated better performers on
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

34
standardized assessments. Correlations between poor school attendance rates and at-risk
behaviors support Sheldon’s research. Research findings support that increased truancy results
in likelihood toward delinquent behaviors. A likelihood of increased tobacco, alcohol, and drug
use by truant students were among the reported delinquent behaviors (Sheldon, 2007, p. 273).
Sheldon (2007) recommended connections between school and family as a means through which
administrators and teachers can reach out to mitigate poor attendance rates (p. 274).
Generalizability of this research was limited. Due to the small sample size, Sheldon (2007)
recommended further research beyond school and family partnerships to include teacher quality,
student-teacher relationships, and school climates related to attendance issues and student
achievement (p. 274). Suggested efforts to mitigate truant and anti-social behavior emphasized
micro-level outreach approaches between teachers and individual students.
According to Sanford, Duncombe, and Armour (2008) anti-social behavior among youth
affects one’s own individual academic achievement and that of peers (p. 419). Anti-social
behavior among youth comprises alcohol and drug abuse, unprotected adolescent sex, weapon
usage, and gang affiliation (Sanford, Duncombe, and Armour, 2008, p. 421). Sanford, et al.
(2008) examined the effects of students’ involvement in extracurricular sports activities. Broad
term findings yielded positive correlations between individual student participation in sports
programs, increase in school attendance, and decrease in teacher referrals for misbehavior
(Sanford et al., 2008, p. 426). Teachers’ interview and survey responses corroborated research
findings and related literature regarding youths’ involvement in sports activities. Long and short
term results on individual levels revealed changed attitudes and active academic engagement
(Sanford et al., p. 429). A key finding reported by Sanford et al. (2008) revealed teacher
involvement in the sports programs was impactful of positive change (p. 430). This key finding
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

35
has implications for professional developments. Further research comparing different
extracurricular programs is necessary. Individualistic needs, limited contexts, and time and
resource constraints limit applicability of findings (Sanford et al., p. 427).
Lee and Kushner (2008) employed an analysis of data to correlate student achievement
with effects of single parenthood. A longitudinal study followed a cohort of high school students
through their final three years of high school (Lee & Kushner, 2008, p. 611). The researchers
analyzed math and reading test score data, and subjective teacher evaluations of single parent
children, to determine the effect of matched and opposite gendered pairings in single-parent
families (Lee & Kushner, 2008, p. 607). Psychodynamic theories, among a number of theories,
purport matched-gendered child and single-parent pairings. However, psychodynamic theory is
considered outdated by theorists who support gender-flexibility based on concepts of social
development (Lee & Kushner, 2008, p. 608). Lee and Kushner (2008) found students matched
with same gendered single parents produced no statistically significant academic achievements
when compared to peers of varying familial structures (p. 613). Counterintuitive to
psychodynamic theory, Lee and Kushner (2008) found significant academic achievement in
mathematics test scores for girls living with single-fathers; supported by subjective evaluations
from math and English teachers (pp. 613-615). Lee and Kushner (2008) presented findings
contradictory to popularly held beliefs, based on disproven theories, regarding gender roles,
single parenthood, and academic achievement (p. 615). Girls raised in single-father households
performed academically higher on mathematics when compared to other household family
structures. Lee and Kushner (2008) acknowledged limitations the limitations of their findings.
Among the limitations, the researchers were unable to determine single-parenthood factors in
relation to marital status. Single-parenthood factors related to divorce, spousal death, and birth
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

36
conditions remained undetermined (Lee & Kushner, 2008, p. 617). Further research will
facilitate greater understanding regarding why the single-father/daughter dynamic resulted in
higher academic achievement in mathematics (Lee & Kushner, 2008, p. 161).
Filter and Horner (2009) hypothesized that how teachers give attention may mitigate
issues among students who have problems with behavior. They found that students who behave
disruptively may be trying to communicate with teachers the need for academic support (Filter &
Horner, 2009, p. 14). The immediacy and method of support provided helped reduce the
problem behavior of two observed students. Filter and Horner (2009) found disruptive behavior
among students occurred when their frustration levels related to tasks were reached. Teacher
attention was the desired outcome of such behavior. When the teacher intervened and provided
academic support, students felt they avoided failure and discontinued disruptive behavior.
“Although students with serious problem behaviors account for less than 5 percent of the school
population, they can account for more than 50 percent of discipline referrals in a school”
(Taylor-Greene et al., 1997, Filter & Horner, 2009, p. 16). Filter and Horner’s (2009) findings
require further research due to the brief scope and sample size of their research.
Smith, Cavanaugh, and Moore (2011) examined students’ and instructors’ attitudes
toward learning, studying, and instructing related to multimedia instruction (p. 1). Comparisons
were drawn between multimedia instruction and live demonstration. Findings reflect students’
performances improved when repetitious practice and feedback were provided by instructors
regardless of instructional method (Smith, Cavanaugh, & Moore, 2011, p. 2). Multimedia
instruction provided the perception of efficiency and autonomy for students. Students reported
that they exercised autonomy and performed at self-determined paces. Alternative media
allowed for greater accessibility and repetition (Smith et al., 2011, p.6). Live demonstrations
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

37
provided the perception of autonomy for instructors (Smith et al., 2011, p. 7). Instructors
perceived greater control of the learning experience in live demonstration labs. Students
appreciated the interactive nature of live demonstrations, but perceived a lack of efficiency.
Students in the multimedia cohort reported being self-directed and having higher self-efficacy.
Conversely, instructors reported decreased student participation and preparation by some
participants due to social loafing (Smith et al., 2011, p. 6). Smith et al. (2011) found conflicting
points of view between students and instructors. Students appreciated the autonomous nature of
multimedia instruction. Instructors appreciated the autonomous nature of live presentations
(Smith et al., 2011, p. 9). Limitations of this study relate to the fact that only one comparison
between instructional methods, live presentations versus instructional media, was conducted.
These findings call for further research related to the pedagogy of multimedia instruction and
hands-on live demonstrations.
White (2011) found several factors contributed to four students’ reluctance to participate
in Socratic dialogue in small college classes. The four students represented cultural and
linguistic diversity. During the case study, White (2011) found that unfamiliarity with the
American “discursive style”, feelings of academic incompetency, and resistance to the white
lexicon accounted for the students’ reluctance to participate in whole-class discussions (pp. 256-
259). Each student described lack of instructor guidance, which included protection from
inaccurate statements or dominant dispositions from other students, made them feel vulnerable
and unwilling to participate (White, 2011, p. 257). The students’ aversion proved stronger than
the motivation to maintain acceptable grade-point averages (White, 2011, p. 254). Feelings of
intimidation and betrayal superseded any sense of academic accountability or entitlement. White
(2011) contrasted the empowerment resulting from students’ voices in Socratic and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

38
communicative efforts with oppression resulting from compulsory participation in discussions
(p. 261). White (2011) called upon teachers and instructors to consider the needs of students
who represent non-dominant cultures when designing course discussion forums (p. 261).
Valuing and protecting diversity is implied. Critical Race Theory informs teacher planning of
effective and inclusive course and discussion design. White (2011) advised instructors to value
and protect linguistic diversity through emphasizing the practice of code-switching. Code-
switching allows students to preserve their linguistic and cultural diversity while adding a
dimension of academic discourse, American Standard English, to their lexicon (White, 2011, p.
262). Research designed to survey teachers’ awareness or knowledge of the numerous dialects
of English would serve to inform future studies into linguistic diversity.
Parcel, Campbell, and Zhong (2012) conducted a longitudinal study where they measured
the effects of “family social capital” upon students’ predisposed to “behavior problems” (p. 165).
Family social capital involves “time and effort” parents spend with their children and plays a
predominant role in childhood cognition and social development (Parcel, Campbel, & Zhong,
2012, p. 167). Students in Great Britain and the United States were studied. Family social
capital ascribes fatherhood as promoting childhood well being, while conversely, disruptions in
the family such as separation and divorce or poor child health pose detriments to childhood
development (Parcel et al., 2012, p. 165). The implications place value on how parents foster
home environments to include safety, cognitive stimulation, and familial interactions (Parcel et
al., 2012, p. 167). Parcel et al. (2012) argued that these implications serve as predictors for
possible “behavior problems” (p. 178). Deterioration of quality home environments involved
incidents of family crisis affecting less time spent between parents and their children (Parcel et
al., 2012, p. 178). This study did not account for proxy or supplement of welfare state systems
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

39
upon families seeking assistance (Parcel et al., 2012, p. 179). Further research at both micro and
macro levels, involving context specific cases of students at-risk are recommended.
Students At-Risk
Hampel, Meier, and Kummel (2008) evaluated a stress management program utilized
among pre-adolescent and adolescent students. Stress associated with interpersonal exchanges
contributes to behavior problems when students lack successful coping mechanisms (Hampel,
Meier, & Krummel, 2008, p. 1009). Students reported stress as they perceived it (Hampel et al.,
2008, p. 1016). Prevention of behavior problems through teacher development and promotion of
coping strategies for students necessitates an understanding of pre-adolescent and adolescent
interpersonal stress. Hampel et al. (2008) focused on promotion of adaptive coping and self-
efficacy in response to student stress through a school-based program (p. 1012). This non-
randomized study involved a control and experimental group of students and teachers from two
schools (Hampel et al., 2008, p. 1012). Students in the experimental group received training
about, “…cognitive restructuring, self-control techniques, problem solving, modeling, role play,
prevention of relapse, and transfer into daily life” (Hampel et al., 2008, p. 1013). Students,
parents, and teachers reported improvements in students’ coping abilities related to perceived
stress (Hampel et al., 2008, p. 1013). Validation of Hampel, Meier, and Kummel’s research
requires randomized samples in future investigations. Concerns related to internal validity may
be addressed through future research that includes longer-term investigations and isolation of
particular stress factors including stress management (Hampel et al., 2008, p. 1022).
Research findings correlate decreased student achievement with divorce. Steele, Sigle-
Rushton, and Kravdal (2009) analyzed the educational achievement of students experiencing
divorce in Norway. The setting of Norway played a specific purpose in this research. Increases
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

40
of divorce rates in Norway have not correlated with lowered economic lifestyles among
members of disrupted families (Steele, Sigle-Rushton, & Kravdal, 2009, p. 253). In countries
such as the United States, divorce rates suggest decreased economic resources tying lower
student achievement to economic disadvantages (Steele et al., 2009, p. 554). Government
subsidies serve to mitigate disruptions such as divorce and single parenthood in Norway (Steele
et al., 2009, p. 555). Student age and gender factored into the research. Steele et al. (2009) found
greater negative impacts of divorce upon female as opposed to male student achievement (p.
565). A student’s age was considered a significant factor. Steele et al. (2009) suggested that
younger students experienced greater negative effects of divorce than older students (p. 565).
The findings imply that the impact of divorce diminishes with age and educational attainment.
Steele et al. (2009) explained that divorce at earlier ages affects cumulatively the likelihood of
dropout (p. 569). The loss of one or both parents during divorce did not account for negative
associations with educational achievement. Steele et al. (2009) findings suggest that the
disruptive process of divorce itself, even if parents reunited, led to decreased academic
achievement and attainment (p. 569). Comparatively, Steele et al. (2009) equated more
disadvantage with divorce than with paternal death (p. 568). Specific contexts relating divorce
experiences to parenting skills or individual family earnings were not explored. Steele et al.
(2009) suggest further research related to non-traditional families and causative factors of
divorce in order to better understand how to support students experiencing a familial disruption
such as divorce (p. 570).
An in-depth research explored the impact of divorce upon large and small families. Sun
and Li (2009) examined academic achievement of students experiencing the disruption of
divorce within their families (p. 625). Students with siblings were compared to students without
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

41
siblings. Sun and Li (2009) argued that an only child suffers greater consequences from family
crises such as divorce than children with more than one sibling (p. 623). Consequences suffered
relate to reading and math academic achievement. Siblings help absorb negative impacts of
divorce and the resulting effects of diminished resources may not feel severe (Sun & Li, 2009, p.
624). Resources include but are not limited to finances. Parents present time, attention, and
assistance as resources. Sun and Li (2009) explain the experience of fewer resources available at
the outset of larger families dilute the impact of diminished resources resulting from divorce (p.
624). Comparative research results show correlations between student achievement and sibling
status. Students experiencing divorce with no siblings showed lower performance on
achievement tests than students with siblings (Sun & Li, 2009, p. 628). Research correlated a
greater number of siblings in a family experiencing divorce with less dire consequences upon an
individual student’s academic achievement (Sun & Li, 2009, p. 630). A disparity between
reading and math achievement was noted. Although students with siblings experience less
disruption in academic achievement, a correlation between decreased math achievement and
increased family size was not explored (Sun & Li, 2009, p. 632). Data available to Sun and Li
(2009) did not account for emotional support provided by siblings, which may explain a
phenomenon of the diminished impact divorce had upon student achievement (p. 633). Research
findings imply future research needs to include context-specific accounts to inform how support
may be provided from outside a student’s family. Effective strategies suggested to assist
students experiencing divorce include school personnel as resources (Sun & Li, 2009, p. 632).
Students at-risk of not achieving standard performance can be viewed by teachers
through a deficit lens (San Martin & Calabrese, 2010, p. 119). San Martin and Calabrese (2010)
gained perspective of at-risk students attending an alternative high school through interviews.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

42
The theory of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) was utilized. At the core, AI places students as
stakeholders in their learning experience fostering “…social capital, mutual respect, and
generative thinking” (San Martin & Calabrese, 2010, p. 111). San Martin and Calabrese (2010)
defined alternative schools to provide non-traditional educational experiences for students who
have had unsuccessful experiences in traditional settings and who are at-risk of dropping out of
school (p. 111). Students described preferred methods of learning and teachers’ pedagogical
practices. Preferred experiences included relevance of materials and instruction, collaboration,
structured rules, student and teacher dialogue, interactive learning, and creation of a familial
environment in the classroom (San Martin & Calabrese, 2010, p. 114). Implications for
traditional and alternative school settings suggest student empowerment (San Martin and
Calabrese, 2010, p. 120). Further research in similar and traditional settings is recommended.
Hagan and Foster (2012) purposed to fill knowledge gaps regarding paternal
incarceration and effects upon children’s educational prospects. The described spillover effects
of a father’s imprisonment are not limited to his children and their educational prospects (Hagan
& Foster, 2012, p. 261). Effects include teachers and other students. Studies were conducted in
minority communities where high incidences of incarceration occur (Hagan & Foster, 2012, p.
260). Hagan and Foster (2012) focused upon students attending American schools with
disproportionate levels of paternal incarcerations. Statistically significant correlations drawn
between lower grade point averages (GPA), and decreased school attendance as a result of
paternal incarceration, overlapped with similar findings for students with fathers who are not
incarcerated (Hagan & Foster, 2012, p. 273). The similarities occurred within schools where
higher incidences of paternal incarceration occur. Hagan and Foster’s (2012) findings remained
with schools where higher than average levels of father incarceration occur. Examination of the
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

43
effects of paternal incarceration in different school settings is necessary (Hagan & Foster, 2012,
p. 279). Further research is required to examine the effected relationship between teachers and
students with incarcerated fathers (Hagan & Foster, 2012, p. 279).
Factors outside the realm of school and personnel influence, such as relocating
residencies, contribute to increases of students at-risk for underachievement. Voight, Shinn, and
Nation (2012) conducted longitudinal studies to determine the impact of residential relocation
upon student achievement between kindergarten through grade eight (p. 385). Voight et al.
(2012) defined moving as residential mobility. The process of moving creates stress detractors.
The researchers acknowledged that stress exists even under positive circumstances associated
with moving residencies. Student underachievement results cumulatively from relocations
regardless of reasons for moving (Voight, Shinn, & Nation, 2012, p. 386). Voight et al. (2012)
supported their research with a number of studies correlating the impact of residential mobility
and student achievement. Supportive studies included homelessness and relocation due to
financial crises among the factors determining mobility (Voight, et al., 2012, p. 386). Students
experiencing residential relocation at earlier ages experienced widening achievement gaps
between themselves and peers in later grade levels (Voight, et al., 2012, p. 389). The focus of
the study remained upon reading and math achievement. Voight et al. (2012) correlated a
downward trajectory of student achievement with early in life residential moves (p. 390).
Subsequent moves exacerbated the achievement gap. Students who successfully self-motivate to
read, experienced less of an achievement gap in reading but more in math (Voight, et al., 2012,
p. 390). Voight et al. (2012) could not differentiate between residential and school environment
detractors in students’ residential mobility (p. 391). Most of the students examined moved
residences but not schools. Further research is required to determine how to meet the needs of
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

44
students experiencing high frequency residential moves and whether the effects persist into high
school (Voight, et al., 2012, p. 391).
Teacher Disposition
Thompson, Ransdell, and Rousseau (2005) examined the dispositions of 14 elementary
teachers who work with students identified as lower SES in an urban school setting. The
teachers examined were identified by their principal as effective in promoting students’ academic
achievement on standardized assessments (Thompson, Ransdell, & Rousseau, 2005, p. 22).
Thompson et al. (2005) observed that the teachers established rapport with their students. The
teachers outwardly respected students, believed their students could achieve, and effectively
communicated instructional and learning expectations (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 27). Teachers
exercised effective classroom management and students learned through repetition (Thompson et
al., 2005, p. 31). The learning environments were teacher-centered, not learner-centered. The
teachers utilized direct instruction as opposed to variant instructional methodologies, and
curriculum was not integrated (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 27). Evidence of student choice was
unobserved. These methods of instruction run counter to constructivist theory purported in most
teacher preparation institutions and concerned the researchers (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 31). In
the observed contexts, instruction focused learning on standardized test achievement.
Development of higher-order thinking and problem solving skills were not evident (Thompson et
al., 2005, p. 33). The chosen methodologies of the observed teachers may reflect internalized
beliefs about the student population (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 32). Thompson et al. (2005) did
not contrast their research with a learner-centered environment. Comparative observations in
constructivist learning environments would provide a more robust research.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

45
Conversely, teachers who work with transnational students must possess flexible
pedagogical practices. Cline and Necochea (2006) observed teachers and students in a
borderland school between Mexico and the United States. Observed teachers of transnational
students possessed several dispositions that enabled effective instruction and student
achievement. The dispositions included flexible thinking, passionate attitudes toward borderland
education, willingness to participate in ongoing professional developments, cultural sensitivity,
and multi-lingual abilities (Cline & Necochea, 2006, p. 271). Effective teachers of borderland
students approached teaching and learning with a flexible attitude. Flexibility allowed teachers
to individualize educational experiences for their students (Cline & Necochea, 2006, p. 273).
Passionate teachers possessed abilities to address the complex needs of diverse borderland
students (Cline & Necochea, 2006, p. 275). Relevant, ongoing professional developments
enabled borderland teachers to adapt to and prepare for constantly changing student needs (Cline
& Necochea, 2006, p. 277). Culturally sensitive teachers affirmed students who differed in
cultural backgrounds (Cline & Necochea, 2006, p. 278). A pluralistic attitude toward
multilingualism elevated students’ abilities and honored student contributions in the classroom
(Cline & Necochea, 2006, p. 279). Although the researchers’ findings were context specific, the
practices can be applied within urban contexts.
Culturally responsive teachers use specific skills and strategies to effectively teach
students. Ware (2006) conducted a case study focused on two African American teachers who
used the pedagogy of warm demander. As a component of culturally responsive teaching, the
pedagogy of a warm demander associates positive cultural and racial identity with teaching and
learning experiences (Ware, 2006, pp. 427 & 451). The term describes teachers who
successfully teach African American students (Ware, 2006, p. 436). Students believe warm
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

46
demanders hold them to high standards. Students overcome limits and lack of skills in a culture
where warm demanders expect achievement from everyone (Ware, 2006, p. 443). Warm
demanders create highly structured classrooms, emphasize discipline, and effectively teach
societally disenfranchised students (Ware, 2006, p. 436). Observations included an account of a
teacher disciplining her students regarding incomplete homework. Studies indicate that African
American teachers who embrace culturally responsive methods teach with authority (Ware,
2006, p. 437). Students regard strict discipline as indicative of demonstrated care (Ware, 2006,
p. 438). Warm demanders effectively circumvent issues of discipline and maintain academic
emphasis (Ware, 2006, p. 439). Warm demanders demonstrate that they care for their students.
Students identified warm demanders as teachers who listen to their needs (Ware, 2006, p. 441).
As pedagogues, warm demanders combine two contrasting methodologies of teaching. Warm
demanders utilize direct instruction and inquiry-based learning (Ware, 2006, p. 446). Culturally
responsive pedagogy empowers students (Ware, 2006, p. 448). Research data suggested that
teachers’ affinities toward cultural and racial identity influenced positive connections between
warm demanders and their students (Ware, 2006, p. 454). Warm demander pedagogies and
student-teacher relationships created classroom cultures of achievement (Ware, 2006, p. 454).
Further studies to determine the effects of warm demander pedagogies in various contexts would
benefit the extant research.
Cornelius-White (2007) analyzed existing research, studies, and related findings to
promote a “person-centered” educational model originating from counseling and psychology (p.
113). Teachers who openly trust their students establish positive, genuine, and empathetic
relationships (Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 114). Positive teacher-student relationships promote
successful student achievement (Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 130). Successful student
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

47
achievement results from relevant problem solving, access to resources, learning contracts,
collaborative grouping, differentiation of instruction, community projects, and peer mentoring
(Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 114). Critical issues within schools can be addressed through a
“person-centered” model. Multicultural, feminist, and progressive models of education purport
student-centered pedagogy (Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 115). Research has supported high
correlative affects between student-centered approaches to teaching and increased student
participation and investment. Students improved critical, creative, and high-order thinking skills
as a result of self-initiated learning, classroom participation, and motivation (Cornelius-White,
2007, p. 131). Indications of student engagement and improved achievement implied benefits of
learner-centered pedagogical practices (Cornelius-White, 2007, p.120). Reduced student drop-
out rates, truancies, and disruptive behaviors correlated with positive achievements and student-
centered pedagogical approaches (Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 134). Cornelius-White (2007)
acknowledged limitations to the research related to randomization and variability in sample sizes
(p. 133). Recommendations also applied to context specific research in an effort to reduce
variability and heterogeneity of findings (Cornelius-White, 2007, p. 134).
Beachum, Dentith, McCray, and Boyle (2008) focused observations upon teachers in an
urban middle school and how pedagogical practices affect student achievement (p. 190). A case-
study was conducted. More than 80% of the student demography was African American
(Beachum, Dentith, McCray, & Boyle, 2008, p. 194). The researchers used critical race theory
(CRT) to explain data findings (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 197). Color-blindness and deference to
policies and practices that promote standardized test achievement alone deny students equitable
access to curriculum and learning (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 204). Both administration and
teaching staff within the observed school embraced a strict disciplinary code (Beachum et al.,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

48
2008, pp. 198-201). Subsequent classroom observations revealed incoherent and unarticulated
curriculum (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 201). The researchers observed teachers using outdated
texts and materials. Teachers identified as effective by the administration conformed to
preparing students for standardized testing (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 201). Students passively
conformed to expectations of good behavior and quiet work (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 203).
Increased teacher discipline referrals of African American students illustrated conscious and
subconscious bias (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 207). Observations of strained relationships
between white teachers and African American students, and white teachers and African
American administrators, revealed perpetuated color blindness and bias (Beachum et al., 2008, p.
208). Beachum et al. (2008) recommend teachers and administrators to actively combat
institutionalized racism that appeared in the form of colorblindness and race neutrality (p. 210).
Current, research based, pedagogical practices help counter bias and mistreatment of students
based on stereotype (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 210).
Downey (2008) investigated current research and conducted teacher interviews in order
to provide recommendations about effective practices for teaching at-risk students (p. 57).
Downey (2008) defined factors that contribute to students’ at-risk placement. The factors
include issues related to low socio-economic status, domestic difficulties, and psychological
issues (Downey, 2008, p. 56). Downey (2008) purported that academic success for at-risk
students depends upon student-teacher relationships. Teachers who hold students accountable to
high expectations and standards, incentivize extrinsically and intrinsically, provide appropriate
dialogic feedback, and are themselves role models, help to create “educational resilience” for at-
risk students (Downey, 2008, p. 56). Emphasized are teaching practices based upon rapport and
interpersonal relationships (Downey, 2008, p. 57). Instructional strategies emphasize authentic,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

49
cooperative, and hands-on learning experiences students can apply to their lives (Downey, 2008,
p. 61). Downey (2008) concluded that at-risk students can have academic failure disrupted and
turned into successful achievement based upon relationships with teachers (p. 62). The
pedagogical practices of teachers who successfully disrupt failure are based on common
practices (p. 63). Downey (2008) did not make evident whether only one student-teacher
encounter resulted in disruption of academic failures or if a series of such relationships is
necessary.
Researchers echo the imperative of teacher knowledge as an integral aspect of teacher
effectiveness on student achievement. Cochran-Smith, Friedman, Barnatt, and Pine (2009)
explored teacher effectiveness and reflective practices about on-going learning and future
problem-solving in teacher preparation programs (p. 17). Reflective processes were designed to
emphasize student learning. Cochran-Smith, et al. (2009) have illustrated how students learn as
a central focus of “practitioner inquiry” (p. 19). Teachers reflected on their intentions, how they
work with students, the lessons they plan, and their own perceptions of the teaching and learning
process (Cochran-Smith, Friedman, Barnatt & Pine, 2009, p. 19). A challenge presented itself in
the duality of teachers’ abilities to reflect on student learning as informative to their own
learning. Teacher candidates who demonstrated strong reflective abilities focused upon the
complex nature of student learning and how it informs practice and on-going teacher learning
(Cochran-Smith, et al., 2009, p. 25). Teacher candidates who did not demonstrate strong
reflective abilities did not revisit or alter their practices when students did not show improved
achievement. Strong reflections implied recursive practice. One candidate demonstrated a
process of ongoing reflective practice in an effort to understand how her students made meaning
of text (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2009, p. 27). The process involved analyzing teacher practice and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

50
student achievement, and altering practice to meet student needs and ask continuous questions
(Cochran-Smith, et al., 2009, p. 27). Cochran-Smith et al. (2009) have proposed reflective
practice as an “inquiry stance” which should be found throughout all teacher preparation
programs (p. 30). Cochran-Smith et al. (2009) also proposed the implementation of measures
that can assist teacher candidates who are unsuccessful at managing ongoing “inquiry stance”.
The proposed measures included paradigmatic shifts and institutional changes informed by
sociocultural and critical race theories that begin at individual levels (Cochran-Smith et al. ,2009,
p. 373).
Teachers influence how students perceive their own academic and social abilities.
Children and adolescents rated the importance of teacher, parent, classmate, and friend support in
an investigative study about self-concept (Demaray, Malecki, Rueger, Brown, & Summers,
2009, p. 13). “Self-concept” relates to perceptions about academic and social abilities, and self-
image (Demaray et al., 2009, p. 25). Students indicated the value of the support they received
from various members of a learning community, particularly teachers. Demaray, Malecki,
Rueger, Brown, and Summers (2009) analyzed data collected from the ratings and correlated
students’ perceptions of frequency with the importance of social support. Students who valued
teacher support indicated a stronger sense of self-concept associated with the support they
received from their teachers (Demaray et al., 2009, p. 23). Demaray et al. (2009) used a large
sample inclusive of a broad range of student ages. The sample lends to generalizability in other
settings. Demaray et al. (2009) recommended future research to include accounts of
developmental levels of respondents within a broader age range (p. 26). Future research would
benefit from including the academic achievement of respondents correlated with perceived
academic ability.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

51
Research supports specific methods educators utilize to help close the achievement gap
between African American and white students. Gordon, Iwamoto, Ward, Potts, and Boyd (2009)
examined effects of a mentoring program on African American male students in an urban school
setting. Mentoring methods examined included an Afrocentric model (Gordon et al., 2009).
Mentors promoted student-teacher relationships, ethnic identity and academic achievement in an
effort to positively associate students with the program (Gordon, Iwamoto, Ward, Potts, & Boyd,
2009, p. 277). Specific steps taken by mentors relied upon racial identity theory. According to
variant views on racial identity, different stages of development determine saliency of race and
individuality (Gordon et al., 2009, p. 279). Effective mentor-mentee relationships involve
mutual trust, exchange of information, and role modeling (Gordon et al., 2009, p. 280). Mentors
directly influence student grade-point averages (GPA). Positive associations between academics
and racial identity influenced increases in GPAs (Gordon et al., 2009, p. 283). Students
transferred their successes outside of their school setting. “Fostering a positive racial identity
may begin to dismantle the social barriers to academic success often experienced by Black young
men” (Gordon et al., 2009, p. 235). Student motivation may factor into the research findings.
Small sample size and purposeful selection of students limits the generalizability of specific
findings and requires further research (Gordon et al., 2009, p. 386). Bridging achievement gaps
is imperative within the teaching profession.
Suldo et al. (2009) associated students’ “subjective well-being (SWB)” with perceptions
of teacher support (p. 67). Teacher dispositions and practices directly impact student
experiences. Suldo et al. (2009) linked specific teacher actions to students’ perceptions and
senses of self-worth and well-being (p. 68). Student-teacher relationships are emphasized.
Findings suggest that communicating emotional support, providing assistance, giving evaluative
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

52
feedback, and assisting with problem solving help promote ideal relationships (Suldo et al.,
2009, p. 69). Suldo et al. (2009) used a mixed method approach, to identify specific teacher
dispositions students associated as supportive. Students indicated authentic and genuine concern
with individual well being contributes to desirable teacher dispositions (Sudo et al., 2009, p. 74).
Teachers who frequently show genuine concern make efforts to improve students’ “emotional
states” (Sudo et al., 2009, p. 75). Other desirable dispositions emphasized equity. Fair
punishment, inclusive learning environments where student questions are encouraged, and the
time teachers devote to students’ learning needs contribute to positive student-teacher
relationships (Sudo et al., 2009, p. 75). Students contrasted perceptions of supportive teachers
against behaviors indicating low to no support. The opposite of the previously mentioned
desirable dispositions hinged upon teacher disinterest in student well-being (Sudo et al., 2009, p.
78). The limited sample studied included middle class students from a predominantly Caucasian
background (Sudo et al., 2009, p. 80). The findings have implications on future teacher
practices, but contrast with findings of students surveyed in urban school settings. This research
does not generalize to students in diverse schools with lower SES (Sudo et al., 2009, p. 82).
Jordan, Glenn, and McGhie-Richmond (2010) studied teacher practices and beliefs
regarding inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms (p. 259). Jordan
et al. (2010) acknowledged disparities between teachers’ conceptual support of inclusion and
actual classroom practice (p. 260). Observed teachers used instructional time efficiently and
engaged all learners within an inclusive classroom (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010,
p. 261). Effective teachers managed whole group, small group, and individual instructional time.
The skills teachers acquired, to include students with disabilities, academically benefitted all
learners within their classrooms (Jordan et al., 2010, p. 262). Jordan et al. (2010) identified a
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

53
continuum of teacher beliefs regarding students’ abilities and disabilities. On the opposite ends
of the continuum were teachers who believed disabilities to be fixed and unchangeable as
opposed to teachers who believed that intervening can improve achievement of all students
(Jordan et al., 2010, p. 262). Jordan et al. (2010) drew correlations between teachers who
believed interventions improved disabled students’ achievement and inclusive classroom
practices supportive of all learners (p. 263). The correlations supported effective teaching
practices. Jordan et al. (2010) observed that effective teachers paid attention to students with
disabilities, but may have overlooked at-risk students (p. 264). Overall, teachers who
epistemologically believed in and practiced inclusion engaged all students in learning (Jordan et
al., 2010, p. 265). The data collected by Jordan et al. (2010) suggest and support effective
practices but require broader contexts for further research (p. 264). Factors regarding school
climate and teacher leadership implied contextual influences on teachers’ beliefs but necessitate
further research.
An ethnographic study of a kindergarten classroom, associated the teacher as a social
positioner with her students, regarding their intelligence capacities (Hatt, 2011, p. 2). Student
intelligence as a concept crosses ethnographic, sociocultural, linguistic, and gender diversity.
Hatt (2011) tied teachers’ pedagogical and disciplinary practices to students’ identities associated
with intelligence. Implicit intelligence can be acculturated. The student-teacher dynamic
influences student efficacy. Through intended perception, effortful identification, and
pedagogical practice, teachers co-construct and socialize student intelligence (Hatt, 2011, pp. 2
& 5). In the kindergarten classroom Hatt (2011) observed student-teacher interactions around
such behaviors and abilities as shoe-tying and expected nap-time behavior. Students who tied
their own shoes, remembered their home phone-numbers, and who conformed passively to
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

54
behavior prompts were labeled “smart” (Hatt, 2011, pp. 13-16). Students described by the
teacher as challenging or difficult were isolated and viewed less capable by peers (Hatt, 2011,
p.18). Hatt’s (2011) observations imply the responsibilities teachers have to their students. “The
figured world of smartness is located within us, not as a biological capacity but, instead, as a
cultural practice we use to invest meaning in others and ourselves” (Hatt, 2011. p. 20). Limits to
this study, stem from the context consisting of one kindergarten classroom of 25 students (Hatt,
2011, p. 8). Future research would benefit from the inclusion of interview data from students
and teachers within urban settings.
Student-teacher relationships as defined by Kim and Schallert (2011) depend not only
upon what teachers do, but how students respond (p. 1059). Students and teachers share learning
experiences. Reciprocity nurtured in student-teacher exchanges connects student achievement to
teacher behavior (Kim & Schallert, 2011, p. 1059). Kim and Schallert (2011) examined
moment-by-moment dialogic exchanges between students and teachers illustrative of caring
relationships (p. 1060). Available transcripts of Professor and student-teacher online exchanges,
illustrated instances of productive and unproductive feedback (Kim & Schallert, 2011, pp. 1064-
1065). Implicit in shared experiences is the degree of trust between participants. Regardless of
intentions, Professors who struggled with establishing trust, experienced difficulty with student
receptivity during feedback (Kim & Schallert, 2011, p. 1066). Students who perceived teachers
as caring appeared more receptive and responsive to professorial guidance. Kim and Schallert
(2011) highlighted the complex nature of student-teacher relationships. Establishing trust, while
idyllic, may suffer due to misunderstandings and contextual situations (Kim & Schallert, 2011, p.
1066). The findings suggest devotion to time, rapport, and history as integral to building
relationships between students and teachers.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

55
State-wide and district efforts to provide equitable access to curriculum and increase
student achievement can be undermined by ingrained teacher beliefs. Harris (2012) argued that
systematic implementation of standards-based reform efforts must include examination of
district, school, and teacher approaches to instruction (p. 146). Standards were designed to
promote equitable access to education (Harris, 2012, p. 128). Teachers’ pedagogical practices
and deficit beliefs influence students’ access and achievement related to curriculum (Harris, p.
130). Harris (2012) found deficit beliefs among teachers predominated in urban schools where
minority students represented high enrollment rates (p. 131). Interview respondents suggested
beliefs in fixed Intelligence Quotients (IQ), and that culture and socioeconomic status
contributed to student underachievement (Harris, 2012, pp. 136-137). Deficit beliefs among
teachers create variance in application of standards-based approaches (Harris, 2012, p. 141).
Harris (2012) limited his studies to urban schools. Research regarding student achievement,
teacher beliefs, and standards-based reform within different contexts is necessary. Harris (2012)
raised concerns about systemic changes that may reinforce patterns of teaching and instruction
influenced by teacher beliefs (p. 146).
Students likely to drop out of school described contextualized experiences related to their
likelihood. “Vulnerable youth” defines socioeconomically and socio-politically disadvantaged
students who attend poorly funded underperforming schools (McHugh, Horner, Colditz, &
Wallace, 2013, p. 10). McHugh, Horner, Colditz, and Wallace (2013) interviewed focus groups
of students likely to drop out of school. The students represented diverse backgrounds within an
urban school (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 31). Students in this study reported on positive and
negative student-teacher interactions (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 11). The theory of self-
determination served as the model for McHugh et al. (2013). Autonomy, self-efficacy, and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

56
interpersonal relationships provided the basis for positive student-teacher relationships (McHugh
et al., 2013, p. 13). Students’ perceptions of relationships with teachers influenced how they
perceived their educative experiences (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 13). Positive student-teacher
relationships led to students remaining in schools, increasing self-efficacy and motivation, and
achieving academic success (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 12). Teachers who establish meaningful,
ongoing relationships with students, inquire about student well-being and needs. Students
juxtaposed meaningful interactions against feeling subjugated to a one-dimensional role of
learner by perceived uncaring teachers (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 20). Students’ perceptions of
uncaring teachers implied that teachers were inattentive and viewed student stereotypically
(McHugh et al., 2013, p. 31). McHugh et al. (2013) explicitly stated the importance of teachers
initiating authentic and attentive interests in their students (p. 24). McHugh et al. (2013)
acknowledged the importance of students’ perspectives, and called for research inclusive of
different contextual settings and teachers’ perceptions (p. 35).
Structural Inequities
Palmer (2010) observed dual immersion language classes and conducted teacher
interviews regarding program equity within a school-site. The immersion program existed
within an urban school limited to one class per grade level (Palmer, 2010, p. 95). Enrollment
issues arose due to the competitive nature of program placement. Teachers who did not teach the
immersion classes were identified as mainstream teachers (Palmer, 2010, p. 103). Palmer (2010)
found African American students displaced from the immersion classes into mainstream classes,
in favor of middle class white students attending from outside school-site boundaries and
Spanish-speaking students from the community (p. 95). Critical race theory questions issues of
equitability (Palmer, 2010, p. 94). Palmer (2010) contended, based upon interview results, that
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

57
mainstream teachers viewed African American students through deficit lenses (p. 98).
Mainstream teachers perceived African American students not enrolled in the immersion
program as difficult to teach and white students in the immersion program as willing to learn
(Palmer, 2010, p. 103). The aforementioned perceptions contributed to issues related to
internalized segregation and color-blind racism. Palmer (2010) recorded resentments and staff
tensions during interviews. Palmer concluded, that environments such as those observed, create
inequity for African American students. Systemic oppression and re-segregation along with
mainstream teachers’ “unexamined attitudes,” contributed to the limited and undermined access
of African American students to the best learning opportunities and programs (Palmer, 2010, p.
110). As an advocate for immersion programs, Palmer (2010) called for systemic and teacher-
reflective changes in education to progress beyond a racist and classist society (p. 111).
Hughes and North (2011) called for researchers to study, understand, and present findings
related to achievement gaps using wider lenses of depth and complexity. Numerous research
reports rely upon one of two ideologies. Achievement gap research concerning urban students
deserves consideration beyond “…structuralist [sic] and culturalist [sic]…genealogies” (Hughes
& North, 2011, p. 276). Hughes and North (2011) contended that a structural perspective limits
the focus on inequity in education to merely economic and societal issues. This perspective does
not account for how inequity exists in spite of multicultural mobility alongside capitalism
(Hughes & North, 2011, p. 277). Conversely, a perspective limited to cultural issues purports
cultural identity as potentially counterintuitive and contributive to failure and academic
underachievement. This limited perspective discounts inequitable experiences of minority
groups other than experiences of African American students (Hughes & North, 2011, p. 277).
Other research findings supportive of cultural and structural perspectives underrepresent and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

58
undermine institutionalized dissociative and geographically isolating issues (Hughes & North,
2011, p. 280). The limits of structural and cultural perspectives do not account for institutional
factors that may be advanced in teaching practices (Hughes & North, 2011, p. 283). Systemic
oppression based on demography, socioeconomic status, and gender must be acknowledged as
contributive to achievement gaps in American education systems (Hughes & North, 2011, p.
283). Implications of Hughes and North’s manuscript encourage researchers to present wider
and deeper perspectives related to why and how the achievement gap exists.
Summary
Teacher accountability measures have been instituted by government policies such as the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act; an extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). Rigorous teaching and learning standards were initiated through NCLB. Financial
incentives from Race to the Top (RTTT), serve to springboard usage of the nationwide Common
Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS are currently being piloted and will be enacted in
2014. The concept of teacher evaluations threads throughout these policies, acts, and standards.
Teacher evaluations include subjective and objective measures of effectiveness (Fuhrman, 2004;
Braun, 2005; Jacob & Walsh, 2010; & Rockoff & Speroni 2010). Teacher evaluative measures
serve to inform teachers about their teaching effectiveness, with the goal of improving practices
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). Improved teacher quality, as measured through student
achievement, requires an alignment with national standards (Polikoff, 2012). The CCSS serve as
the national alignment of standards for student learning. Kersting et al. (2012) correlated student
achievement gains with teachers who utilized suggestions for improved practices (p. 573).
Current awareness of, and concerns related to, teacher accountability include general education
teachers who collaborate with special education teachers to provide inclusive education.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

59
Table 1
Literature Review Table
Category Highlights Findings Authors
Teacher
Accountability
NCLB is the reauthorization
of ESEA. Teacher evaluative
scores may vary due to
student cohorts. Correlations
between subjective
evaluations and objective
evaluative scores. Highly
effective teachers compared
to least effective teachers.
Teacher practice aligned to
NCLB and Common Core
Standards.
Student achievement on
standardized assessments
informs teacher practices.
Concerns related to test
preparation at the exclusion
of critical thinking.
Teachers’ values are
subjective and objective.
Both highly effective and
least effective teachers have
long-lasting impacts upon
student performance. Quality
of instruction linked to
student achievement.
Fuhrman (2004); Braun
(2005); Christenson, Decker,
Triezenberg, Ysseldyke, and
Reschly (2007); Darling-
Hammond (2007); Smyth
(2008); Jacob and Walsh
(2010); Rockoff and Speroni
(2010); Looney (2011);
Polikoff (2012); Kersting,
Givvin, Thompson,
Santagata, and Stigler (2012)
Inclusion
Classrooms
IDEA federally mandates
teachers to accommodate
students who qualify for
special education services
through IEPs and students
who do not qualify but hold
504 Plans in the general
education classroom.
Students identified with
special needs or disabilities
may experience cycles of
exclusion. Inclusive
education relies upon general
and special education teacher
collaborations to provide
students with special needs
access to education within the
least restrictive environment.
Preece (2006); Berry (2008);
de Boer, Timmerman, Pijl,
and Minnaert (2012);
LaPrairie, Johnson, Rice,
Adams, and Higgins (2010);
Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, and
Rotatori (2012);
Students Who
Present
Learning
Challenges
Students prefer specific
methods of interaction and
exchange in the learning
process. Student attendance
rates effect achievement.
Anti-social behavior effects
academic behavior.
One-on-one attention and
repetition are successful
student remediation efforts.
Consistent daily attendance
can result in higher
standardized test
achievements. Truancy
results in delinquency and
lower achievement. Student-
teacher relationships
influence student motivation.
Extra-curricular activities,
mentoring, multi-media
exposure and teacher attitude
can be used to assist
underachieving students.
Alber-Morgan, Ramp,
Anderson, and Martin (2007);
Sheldon (2007); Lee and
Kushner (2008); Sanford,
Duncombe, and Armour
(2008); Filter and Horner
(2009); Smith, Cavanaugh,
and Moore (2011); White
(2011); Parcel, Campbell, and
Zhong (2012)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

60
Table 1, continued
Category Highlights Findings Authors
Students
At-Risk
Students need to develop
coping mechanisms to deal
with academic and social
stressors. As a stressor,
divorce is associated with low
student achievement. Divorce
exacts different consequences
depending upon situations and
outcomes. Larger families
may feel less impact.
Economic stress and
relocation due to divorce
negatively impact students’
academic achievement.
Teachers use specific
strategies and skills to assist
and equip students with coping
mechanisms. Teacher
introduced discussions about
preventative measures, role
playing, and various coping
strategies correlate with
improved student self-control
and academic achievement.
Teachers are advised to avoid
viewing students through
deficit lenses.
Hampel, Meier, and Kummel
(2008); Gordon, Iwamoto,
Ward, Potts, and Boyd (2009);
Steele, Sigle-Rushton, and
Kravdal (2009); Sun and Li
(2009); San Martin and
Calabrese (2010); Hagan and
Foster (2012); Voight, Shinn,
and Nation (2012)
Teacher
Disposition
Teacher effectiveness can be
measured subjectively and
objectively. Effectiveness can
be measured through
pedagogical and social
dispositions and practices of
teachers.
Flexibility, culturally
responsive teaching, student-
centered approaches, teacher-
knowledge, congeniality,
genuine concern, inclusive
practices, influence over self-
concept and reciprocity are
among characteristics observed
by researchers and described
by students as effective
practices related to increasing
student achievement.
Thompson, Ransdell, and
Rousseau (2005); Cline and
Necochea (2006); Ware (2006);
Cornelius-White (2007);
Beachum, Dentith, McCray,
and Boyle (2008); Downey
(2008); Cochran-Smith,
Friedman, Barnatt, and Pine
(2009); Demaray, Malecki,
Rueger, Brown, & Summers,
2009); Gordon, Iwamoto, Ward,
Potts, and Boyd (2009); Suldo,
Friedrich, White, Farmer,
Minch, and Michalowski
(2009); Jordan, Glenn, and
McGhie-Richmond (2010);
Hatt, (2011); Kim and Schallert
(2011); Harris (2012); McHugh,
Horner, Colditz, and Wallace
(2013)
Structural
Inequities
Critical race theory raises
awareness of issues related to
systematic oppression and
inequitable practices in public
education.
Address misconceptions
related to deficit lens
perspectives among educators.
Raise awareness of cultural
and minority statuses among
all students.
Palmer (2010); Hughes and
North (2011)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

61
Inclusion classrooms provide the least restrictive environment for students who receive
special education services through an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and for students who do
not qualify for special education services but who hold a 504 Plan. Preece (2006) drew attention
to how teachers’ awareness of the multidimensional aspects of poverty, can be used to help
counter the diminishing and exclusionary effects upon students with special needs, and can lead
to equitable access to curriculum. Berry (2008) described inclusion as a social justice practice
influenced by teachers’ attitudes and philosophies and effecting school and community.
Teachers who overcome any personal bias related to inclusionary practices attribute students’
abilities as malleable. LaPrairie et al. (2010) emphasized the federal mandates of IDEA and the
components of IEP and 504 Plans. de Boer et al.(2012) examined teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusionary practices. Their research highlighted teacher dispositions that indicated
inclusionary efforts to be difficult and gaining only modest acceptance. Obiakor et al. (2012)
countered the deficit perspective uncovered by de Boer et al. (2012), with prescribed
collaborative efforts between general and special educators. Further research into how
administrators and other school personnel contribute is necessary.
Students’ experiences and perceptions influence their achievements. Student surveys
indicated preferences for teaching methods involving consistent, mentoring relationships (Alber-
Morgan et al., 2007). Students emphasized the imperative of positive, ongoing, and reciprocal
relationships with teachers. Sheldon (2007) suggested that teachers conduct community outreach
to help mitigate truancies which inhibit students’ academic achievement (p. 273). Simple
gestures and efforts teachers make beyond the classroom day, send messages to students about
their importance as school and community members. Issues related to anti-social behavior can
be mitigated through specific teacher efforts. Efforts include steps teachers take to promote
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

62
extracurricular after-school activities, attentiveness targeting specific student needs, and
reflection upon and alteration of attitudes held toward specific students within the classroom
context (Sanford et al., 2009; Filter & Horner, 2009; & Smith et al., 2011). Parcel et al. (2012)
drew attention to factors outside the realm of teacher influence, such as family capital. Lee and
Kushner (2008) challenged long-held misconceptions regarding single-parenthood and gender of
the child. Negative factors outside the realm of school and teacher influence may account for
students being at-risk for underachievement.
Student at-risk for academic underachievement lack coping mechanisms to deal with
social and academic stressors (Hampel et al., 2008). One recognized social stressor is divorce.
Steele et al. (2009), and Sun and Li (2009) correlated student underachievement with divorce
rates. Divorce can contribute to other social stressors. Voight et al. (2012) recognized family
economic crises and housing displacements to be factors contributing to student
underachievement. Hagan and Foster (2012) described the spillover effects of paternal
incarceration upon students’ academic achievements. San Martin and Calabrese (2010)
cautioned against teachers viewing students through deficit lenses.
How teachers view their students impacts student-teacher interactions, which in turn
effects student achievement (Demaray et al., 2009). Thompson et al. (2005) identified student-
teacher rapport as the result of teachers’ communicative efforts, outward respect for, and belief
in student achievement (p. 27). Effective teachers demonstrate flexibility in thinking about and
approaching instruction and learning (Cline & Necochea, 2006). Ware (2006) described
culturally responsive teaching to improve achievement rates of societally disenfranchised
students (p. 436). Student-centered learning promotes student achievement. Positive student-
teacher relationships promote successful student achievement (Cornelius-White, 2007; Downey,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

63
2008; & Suldo et al., 2009). Positive student-teacher relationships are based upon authentic
concern for student well being and achievement. Gordon et al. (2009) identified culturally
responsive teaching and mentoring as effective efforts teachers make to connect with students.
Hatt (2009) observed how teacher expectations influence student-teacher interactions, thus
effecting student efficacy. Teacher beliefs and practices incorporating inclusiveness for all
learners, including students with disabilities, promote student achievement (Jordan et al., 2010).
Kim and Schallert (2011) emphasized the reciprocity necessary to nurture effective student-
teacher relationships. Students and teachers fill contributor roles in the classroom. Harris (2012)
and Beachum et al. (2008) cautioned against ingrained teacher beliefs that counter culturally
responsive teaching and student achievement. Teachers’ pedagogical practices and deficit
beliefs influence students’ access and achievement related to curriculum (Harris, p. 130).
Autonomy, self-efficacy, and interpersonal relationships provide a basis for positive student-
teacher relationships (McHugh et al., p. 13). Research has revealed teacher dispositions and
practices that can be used to counter structural inequities.
Structural inequities in education systems correlate with educators’ deficit lens
perspectives. Haddix (2010) stated that paradigm shifts and institutional changes must begin
with individual changes in how teachers view their students and student ability. These changes
require reflective practice inclusive of flexible change in pedagogy and classroom management.
Palmer (2010) called for systemic and teacher-reflective changes in education in an effort to
progress beyond a racist and classist society (p. 111). The emphasis relied upon established
student-teacher relationships. Students must believe and feel that their teachers authentically
care for their well being and future as learners and not just improved test scores (San Martin &
Calabrese, 2010). Ongoing research is required to measure the impact different approaches to
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

64
teaching have upon student achievement. Hughes and North (2011) called for researchers to
study, understand, and present findings related to achievement gaps using wider lenses of depth
and complexity. Inclusive educational perspectives provide access and equity to all learners.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

65
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Recent focus upon teacher accountability created a phenomenon linking teachers’ value
and effectiveness with students’ achievements on standardized assessments (Looney, 2011;
Torlakson, 2012; Weiss, 2010). Presently teachers are mandated to increase achievement levels
on standardized assessments of all students, including those presenting learning differences.
How teachers respond to student achievement mandates, when students present these differences,
requires a particular disposition and knowledge of instructional practices to support students who
present learning challenges. This response not only affects students’ testing achievements, but
resultantly teacher evaluations. However, it can be argued that current teacher evaluation
measures do not provide a complete picture of teacher performance and therefore misrepresent
the qualities and skills that define teacher effectiveness. This may be particularly true for
teachers working in inclusion classrooms with large numbers of students presenting academic
and behavioral challenges (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). This study examines these phenomena
by investigating the following research questions:
1. What are the dispositions of teachers who address the varying needs of students in an
inclusive classroom?
a. To what extent do these teachers perceive evaluative processes as influencing
their practice?
b. What are the correlations between individual dispositions and objective
evaluative scores?
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

66
A mixed methods approach utilizing surveys, interviews, observations, and document
review allowed data to be triangulated for validity and reliability (Maxwell, 2013, p. 102;
Merriam, 2009). Described in this chapter are the sample and population, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dispositions and
actions of teachers, juxtaposed with students who present learning challenges and the possible
resulting effects of teacher evaluations. The study also presupposes certain dispositions exist in
teachers, who effectively teach students presenting learning and behavioral differences.
Ethnographic data collection includes teachers’ insights, opinions, efforts, and
descriptions of their own dispositions related to students presenting learning challenges, student
achievement, and teacher evaluations. Glesne (2011) purported the integrative nature of
ethnographies to be comprehensive and inclusive of interviewed, observed, and documented data
(p. 231). Table 2 represents an overview of methodology.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

67
Table 2
Methodology Overview
Data
Collection
Method
Research
Question
Addressed
Method of
Analysis Rational Function Implementation
Surveys RQ 1 Responses
coded to themes
emerging from
research
questions (see
Table 7)
Data
triangulation
Quantitative
Foundational
information:
supported
dispositions
Documented
dispositions
towards students
presenting
learning
challenges
Distributed to 12
teachers
Paper/pencil
format
15 minutes to
complete
Implemented
September, 2013
Interviews RQ 1 & a Responses
transcribed and
coded according
to themes
emerging from
research
questions (see
Table 7).
Data
triangulation
In-depth
Qualitative
Translation of
teachers’
dispositions
(Glense, pp.
219-220)
Purposeful
selection
One-on-one
interviews; 12
teachers;
“tailored”
approach (Weiss,
1994, pp. 3 & 4)
Conducted
October,
November, 2013
Observations RQ 1 & a Field notes
coded according
to themes
emerging from
research
questions (see
Table 7).
Data
triangulation
Qualitative data
collected from
learning
environments
Data collected;
meaning
induced through
“grounded
theory”
(Merriam, p. 29)
Individual
observations
with 12 teachers
Implemented:
December, 2013
and January,
2014
Document
Review
RQ b Archived VAM
scores of
participating
teachers
accessed
through public
media sources
(see Table 6).
Data
triangulation
Quantitative
Effectiveness
score of
participating
teachers
(Buddin, 2014)
Documents
reviewed
throughout data
collection and
research
September 2013
through January,
2014

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

68
Sample and Population
Within Southern California School District (SCSD) is Museum Park School (MPS)
which was selected based upon several criteria: (a) high achievement on Academic Performance
Index (API); API Score of 919; (b) maintained Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); (c) urban
school setting; (e) high percentages of students identified gifted, with special needs, and English
Language learners; and (f) teaching practice integrating inclusive methods. MPS serves a broad
demographic and linguistic student body with students representing a wide range of achievement
abilities.
Students in the SCSD represent 86 languages (Ed-Data/District, 2013). The ethnic
demography of students attending schools within the district is as follows: 72.3% Latino, 10.1%
White, 9.6% African American, four percent Asian American, 2.1% Filipino, and 0.5% Native
American Pacific Islander (Ed-Data/School, 2013). SCSD represents a broad range of academic
achievement and diversity among learners as illustrated in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3
National, SCSD, and MPS Student Demographic Profiles
District/
School/
Class
American
Indian,
Alaskan
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian,
Pacific
Islander Filipino
African
American Latino White
Two or
more
races Total
National 582,000
(1.2%)
2,653,000
(5.3%)
7,876,000
(15.7%)
12,161,000
(24.3%)
25,525,000
(51%)
1,270,000
(2.5%)
50,067,000
SCSD 3,072
(0.5%)
26,700
(4%)
2,506
(0.4%)
14,045
(2.1%)
63,714
(9.6%)
478,943
(72.3%)
66,833
(10.1%)
607
(0.1%)
677,538
MPS 1
(0.1%)
440
(54.5%)
0
(0%)
15
(1.9%)
58
(7.2%)
72
(8.9%)
220
(27.3%)
0
(0%)
807
(California Department of Education, 2013; Ed-Data, 2013)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

69
Table 4
Special Education Profiles
District/School GATE
Students with
Disabilities Total
National 2,926,034 (6%) 6,419,405 (12.9%) 49,484,000
SCSD 65,534 (9.9%) 82,257 (12.5%) 655,455
MPS 104 (13%) 101 (12.6%) 803
(NCES/Table 51, 2000)

Students attending MPS represent a diverse elementary student body speaking more than
20 languages other than English. The ethnic demography of the student body represents: 54.5%
Asian American; 27.3% White; 8.9% Latino; 7.2% African American; 1.9% Filipino; 0.8%
Pacific Islander; and 0.1% Alaskan Native, (Ed-Data, 2013). Table 3 compares student profiles
across the nation, district, and school.
Students with special needs attending MPS represented 12.6% of the total students tested
in 2012 for the California Standards Test (California Department of Education/API, 2013).
Students identified gifted represent 13 % of the student body. Table 4 represents national,
district, and school percentages of students identified gifted and students identified with special
needs. Table 5 represents national, district, and school percentages for students classified as
English Learners, 24.5% of the student body (Ed-Data, 2013), and students reclassified as Fluent
English Proficient, 14 % of the student body. Both tables below represent the diversity found
within inclusive classrooms in MPS. Students who present learning challenges but do not qualify
for an IEP or 504 Plan may be referred to extra support by the Student Success Team (SST).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

70
Extra support may be recommended in the form of teachers providing differentiation in the
classroom.

Table 5
English Learners
District/School English Learners
Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient Total
National 4,693,818 (9%) n/a 49,484,000
SCSD 180,495 (27%) 242,360 (36.9%) 655,455
MPS 24.5% 14% 803
(NCES/Table 47, 2010)

Teachers within MPS collaborate and utilize inclusive classroom practices. “Mainstream
thinking” is restructured in an effort to accommodate students with a variety of learning needs
(Shaddock, Giorcelli, & Smith, 2007, p. 4). Twelve MPS teachers in grades Kindergarten to five
were purposefully selected based upon resource class assignment, and/or utilization of inclusion
practices. Eight of the twelve participating teachers teach resource clusters. Resource cluster
positions are assigned when teachers enter the grade level, or teachers volunteer to take the
positions. Resource cluster teachers serve to accommodate students identified gifted, who hold
IEPs or 504 Plans, English Learners, students who are mainstreamed from special education, and
students of mainstream ability. Teachers not assigned to teach resource clusters utilize
inclusionary practices with students identified gifted, English Learners, students of mainstream
ability, and, with less frequency than resource teachers, students who hold IEPs or 504 Plans.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

71
Teacher experience ranged from seven years of experience to 39 years of experience. Average
teacher experience among the 12 participating teachers is 17.7 years. Teachers’ training and
credentialing are detailed as follows: two teachers hold special education credentials; one
teacher holds special education compliance; two teachers hold administrative credentials; and
one teacher has administrative experience in the private sector. All teachers have been
professionally developed in the following areas of differentiating instruction: resource training;
special education compliance; GATE training, and EL compliance. All participating teachers are
fully credentialed and meet “highly qualified” compliance requirements.
Instrumentation
The research design for this study follows the social constructivist worldview. Creswell
(2009) held social constructivism to be defined through individual subjective experiences and
perspectives (dispositions). Individuals seek to understand phenomena through their own
experiences. Within this context, researchers appreciate the variability and generalizability of
individual perspectives and avoid pedantic measures (Creswell, 2009, p. 8).
Maxwell (2013) described research questions as componential and directly linked to all
aspects of a study (p. 73). The following framework was designed based upon data collected
from the literature review and relates the research questions to the survey, interview questions,
observation instruments, and document review (Appendices B, C, & D). Table 6 links
instrumentation to the literature to support the research questions and instrumentation.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

72
Table 6
Links Between Instruments, Research Question Components, and the Literature
Data Collection
Instruments
Research Question
Components Research Literature
Survey, Interview,
Observation,
Document Review
Students Presenting
Learning Challenges
Student-teacher relationships (McHugh et al.,
2013). Teachers’ rapport and interpersonal
relationships with students (Downey, 2008, p.
57; Kim & Schallert, 2011; McHugh et al.,
2013). Teacher support and student
achievement (Demaray et al., 2009)
Survey, Interview,
Observation,
Document Review
Student
Achievement
Teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions
about students’ efficacy (Corkett, Hatt, &
Benevides, 2011, p. 90; Harris, 2012). Deficit-
lenses (San Martin & Calabrese, 2010).
Survey, Interview,
Observation,
Document Review
Teacher Evaluations Teacher evaluations and difficult to observe
classroom factors create biases (Rockoff &
Speroni, 2010). Student behaviors and outside
distractions (Staiger & Rockoff, 2010).Effective
teacher evaluations, individual teacher
influences, student achievement, professional
developments, peer input (Looney, 2011, pp.
442-443).

Prior to data collection teachers were informed about the purpose of this study (see
Appendix E). Surveys, interviews, and observations were conducted with four inclusion and
eight resource cluster teachers at MPS. Between 75% and 96% of students with disabilities
participate in inclusion or resource cluster classrooms (Ross-Hill, 2009, p. 189; McCray &
McHatton, 2011, p. 135). Approximately 90 students receiving special education services at
MPS are taught in inclusion or resource cluster classrooms. Responses to the survey questions
indicate attributions to, or locus of, student learning as either static or malleable (Rueda, 2011).
Survey responses were compared to interview responses and observations indicating what
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

73
teachers say and do in their classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Merriam, 2009 p. 78).
Document review of VAM scores provides another perspective in this analysis. Inclusion and
resource cluster teachers from each grade level were purposefully selected and asked to
participate in the data collection.
Survey
The “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (long form)”, developed by Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy (2001) was used (Appendix B). This “cross-sectional” survey was utilized to exhibit
contexts and conditions in a specific point in time; specifically, teachers’ dispositions related to
their practices (Fink, 2013, p. 99). A nine-scale range allows teachers to answer what they can
do: 1—2 (Nothing); 3—4 (Very Little); 5—6 (Some Influence); 7—8 (Quite a Bit); and 9 (A
Great Deal) in relation to the questions (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The survey was
selected since responses reveal teacher efficacy and connect teachers’ dispositions toward how
students presenting challenges learn. The survey questions developed by Tschannen-Moran and
Hoy (2001) align with Delpit’s (2012) listed descriptions of what “good teaching” looks like (p.
134). Both emphasize higher level thinking and student-centered approaches as qualities of
teachers who evoke critical thinking from their students. Both the survey questions and
descriptions of good teaching emphasize what teachers do to facilitate critical thinking and active
learning. What teachers do to enable achievement for students who present challenges, “good
teaching”, depends on dispositions and perspectives supportive of student abilities regardless of
challenges or difficulties (Delpit, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Survey responses were used to gauge the degree to which teachers attribute student
achievement related to teaching and learning. Survey responses indicated whether teachers
attribute student successes or failures to the student alone, the teacher alone, or to a collaborative
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

74
effort of both participants. Fink (2013) described the content or “message” of surveys to be
definitive of particular dispositions (p. 29). Survey responses initially indicated dispositions
which must be supported by what interviewees said about their practices and what they actually
did when observed. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) conducted three studies to affirm the
construct validity of the survey instrument named the Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (p. 796).
Studies were conducted in three universities, Ohio State, William and Mary, and Southern
Mississippi, on pre-service and in-service teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, pp. 796-
780). A panel of three teachers, one administrator and one Resource Specialist Provider
reviewed the survey and found it to be appropriate for the research conducted in this study.
Interviews
The researcher conducted interviews comprised of 11 interview questions (Appendix C)
with each of the twelve teachers selected. Tailored interview approaches allowed for clearer and
more in-depth data from multiple perspectives (Weiss, 1994, pp. 3 & 8). Strategies for
interviewing were used as described by Creswell (2009): interviews were semi-structured; open-
ended questions were asked; and audio-recording and transcription occurred (p. 182). Interviews
were conducted during the months of October and November, 2013 and lasted approximately
one hour each. The researcher relied upon audio recordings and scripted each interview. Corbin
and Strauss (2008) described alternative data to include audio recordings (p. 27). Bogdan and
Biklen (2003) explained that considering and providing for the comfort level of interview
respondents increases their confidence in the interviewer (p. 73). Each interview was conducted
in individual teacher’s classrooms.
What teachers said about their practice, and their students, revealed their efficacy and
dispositions. “Teachers’ perspectives and perceptions of their own teaching, and by extension,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

75
of their students’ learning, are an integral part of successful teaching practice” (Lee, Cawthon, &
Dawson, 2013, p. 84). Interview questions were designed based upon the research questions and
pertinent literature (Appendix C). It is hopeful that this instrument caused interviewees to reveal
insights into their dispositions as teachers. Loughran (2007) acknowledged that when teachers
“unpack” the profession of teaching, when “their voice prevails”, the choices made to plan,
manage, lead, and educate are revealed (Loughran, 2007, p. 30). Responses to interview
questions lent a voice to each teacher’s thought process about, and intentions and dispositions
toward, students who present learning challenges, student achievement, and teacher evaluations.
Interview responses revealed dispositions and facilitated addressing the research questions.
Interview questions were developed by the researcher and field-tested on experts in the field as
part of ongoing dialogic exchange regarding validity and application prior to data collection.
Observations
Observations involved one visit per teacher, lasted one hour per visit, and occurred
during the month of December, 2013. An observation protocol was developed to draw
comparisons between what interviewed teachers said about their practice and their actual practice
within the classroom (Appendix D). Merriam (2009) advised that practicality as related to a
researcher’s orientation and purpose plays an important role in the observation process (p. 120).
Practicality relates to the design of the observation template as Merriam’s (2009) six checkpoint
items and the three themes chosen from the research questions serve as headings throughout the
template (see Table 7). The observation template used, contains six checklist items: the physical
structure/setting, students and teachers, classroom activities, student/teacher interactions,
conversations, and subtle factors (Merriam, 2009, pp. 120-121). Subtle factors relate to teacher
and student dispositions, behaviors, and practices. The six checklist items related to the three
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

76
components of the research question: students presenting learning challenges, student
achievement, and teacher evaluations (see Table 7). The observation protocol was developed by
the researcher and field tested with experts from the field to assure validity and applicability of
the observation instrument.

Table 7
Relating the Three Research Themes to Merriam’s (2009) Six Observation Items
Teacher Dispositions and
Students Presenting Learning
Challenges
Teacher Dispositions and
Student Achievement
Teacher Dispositions and
Teacher Evaluations
Physical Structure/Setting
Classroom
activities/Instructional
Strategies
Conversations
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors
Physical Structure/Setting
Classroom
activities/Instructional
Strategies
Conversations
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors
Classroom
activities/Instructional
Strategies
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors

Document Review
Participating teachers’ VAM scores were collected as “artifacts” from an online
“newspaper account” (Merriam, 2009, pp. 139-140). The purpose of utilizing VAM scores as
artifacts involved triangulation of teachers’ survey and interview responses, and classroom
observations, with quantitative evaluation scores. Maxwell (2013) described the triangulated
process in a mixed methods study to involve “complimentary” data for the purpose of providing
“different aspects” of a study (p. 102).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

77
Data Collection
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC)
granted permission for data collection in the selected school district and school. Prior to the IRB
process at USC, district personnel (SCSD IRB) and the MPS administrator granted access to
teachers for the purpose of data collection. The research questions, purpose of the study, and
survey, interview, and observation instruments were submitted to SCSD personnel and the
principal for review and approval. Meetings were conducted with the school principal and
teachers prior to data collection. Information regarding the research questions, statement of the
problem, and purpose of the study were shared with participants (Appendix E). A schedule was
created to illustrate the sequence of data collection (see Table 8).

Table 8
Gantt Chart Schedule of Data Collection and Analysis
Data Collection/Review Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
Surveys -------
Analysis -------
Interviews ------- -------
Analysis ------- -------
Observations ------- -------
Analysis ------- -------

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

78
The three instruments facilitated a mixed methods approach to data collection and
triangulation. Maxwell (2013) described triangulation as a process utilizing a variety of data
collection methods in an effort to reduce bias (p. 128). The sequence of data collection began
with surveys followed by interviews and ended with observations. This approach allowed for a
process of data collection amenable to tailoring and sensitive to the flow of information (Bodgan
& Biklen, 2003; Weiss, 1994).
Survey
The survey was administered during the month of September, 2013 after a staff meeting,
with permission granted from the district and university IRBs and with permission from the MPS
principal. Survey responses served to provide quantitative results to teacher dispositions.
Teachers were informed that their participation was voluntary and that their anonymity would be
maintained. Teachers needed approximately 15 minutes to complete the paper and pencil
survey. Teachers responded to 24 questions about learning challenges students present and “how
much” they can do about the challenges (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Interviews and Observations
Interviews were conducted with four inclusion and eight resource teachers during the
months of October and November, 2013. Interviews were recorded by hand along with an audio
device to assure accuracy in data collection. Permission to audio-record was requested prior to
each interview. Observations of the same twelve teachers occurred during the following month
of December, 2013. Field notes were recorded on a protocol during observations (Appendix D)
allowing the researcher to collect evidence of behaviors and activities from teachers within their
classrooms, “descriptions”, along with the researcher’s reflections (Creswell, 2009, pp. 181-182).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

79
Document Review
Teachers’ VAM scores were collected and analyzed once participants granted permission
to be surveyed, interviewed, and observed. Individual VAM scores were retrieved from a public
database made available through a highly-publicized news campaign (Buddin, 2014). Creswell
(2009) defined “concurrent triangulation” to be the process of collecting quantitative data while
concurrently collecting qualitative data for the purposes of corroborating all data collected
through different methods (p. 213).
Data Analysis
Analysis of data began immediately following survey responses and each interview and
observation. Merriam (2009) advised researchers to begin analysis during data collection.
Alternating data collection with immediate analysis promotes an organic process of interviewing,
observing, and revisiting or “following-through” themes and concepts related to individual
teacher perspectives (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 57). A phenomenological approach to data
collection and analysis was utilized (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Phenomenological approach to data collection and analysis
Source: Adapted from Creswell (2009)

Data
Collection
Data
Analysis
Repeat
Process
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

80
Survey
Statistical analyses were conducted utilizing responses on the scaled survey. Survey
responses allowed the researcher “…to make statements about statistical significance…” (Fink,
2013, p. 115). Word alignment was conducted between survey questions, responses, and the
research themes. The researcher identified the mean and standard deviations of survey
responses. Coding occurred in two parts. The first and second set of coding with surveyed data
responses occurred a week apart to allow the researcher to conduct proper analysis and assure
reliability (Fink, 2013, p. 137).
Interviews
The researcher transcribed interview recordings and coded teachers’ responses. This
process promoted proper analysis through “category construction” (Merriam, 2009, p. 178).
Interview responses were coded within the parameters of the research question themes and
qualified results (Creswell, 2009, p. 218). Merriam (2009) recommended notating next to “bits
of data” within the recorded transcripts to facilitate sorting and categorizing interview response
data (p. 178). Data was analyzed utilizing TranscribeMe! (2013), an online transcription service.
The program facilitated analyses and categorization of interviewed data through transcription
services. The researcher listened to each interview recording on multiple occasions to check
transcription accuracy and to code data according to research question themes. Interviews
followed by observations served to crosscheck data collected by the researcher and triangulate
with data collected from surveys (Maxwell, 2013).
Observations
Field notes were transcribed from the observation protocol (Appendix D). The notes
were read for the purpose of understanding “general ideas”, re-read for the purpose of notating
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

81
and categorizing, coded using “preassigned…schemes” related to the research questions,
narrated, and interpreted (Creswell, 2009, pp. 182-190). In an effort to assure reliability and
validity, data was analyzed immediately following each observation period.
The research questions contain three components: students presenting learning
challenges, student achievement, and teacher evaluations. These three themes facilitated coding
schemes that were “preassigned” (Creswell, 2009, p. 187). They served to assist in qualifying
surveyed data and quantifying interviewed and observed data (Creswell, 2009). Data analyses
did not draw comparisons to a control group or to multiple schools. Future research utilizing
such methods may continue contributing to the ongoing discussion.
Document Review
VAM scores are used along a scale to rate teachers: (a) “Least Effective”, (b) “Less
Effective”, (c) “Average”, (d) “More Effective”, and (e) “Most Effective” (Buddin, 2014).
During document analysis a number was assigned to each rating. Following the scale a value of
one was assigned to the rating “Least Effective” while the number five was assigned to “Most
Effective” (Buddin, 2014). The correspondence of numbers with ratings allowed for a school-
wide averaging among participating teachers.
Summary
The methodology presented in this chapter followed a mixed methods approach;
however, a qualitative emphasis lent perspective regarding teachers’ dispositions toward students
presenting learning challenges, student achievement on standardized assessments, and mandated
teacher evaluations (Lee, Cawthon, & Dawson, 2013). Four inclusion and eight resource cluster
teachers from MPS were asked to participate in surveys, interviews, and observations. Survey
responses, which indicate to what effect teachers attribute student learning and achievement, and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

82
VAM scores were triangulated with what teachers said about their practice, in interviews, and
what these same teachers were observed doing with students who presented learning challenges.
The twelve teachers were asked to participate in a fifteen-minute survey, a one-hour interview,
and a one-hour observation. Archived VAM scores were collected from an online news source.
Data collected using surveys, interviews, and responses were coded and analyzed with the
assistance of online software programing. This chapter provided the sample, population,
research question framework, instrumentation, and processes of collection and analyses of data.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

83
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
Media portrayal of failing public schools and unionized teachers has influenced public
perceptions, that teachers and students alike can improve achievement under the pressure of
testing accountability (Goldstein, 2011, p. 547). Quantitative methods, such as Value-Added
Modeling (VAM), ascribe numerical value to teachers’ influences over student achievement
gains and losses on standardized assessments. Teacher accountability to improve students’
standardized test scores is imposed by state and district entities and links student achievement to
teacher evaluations (Marder, 2012). Concerns about the quantitative links between student
achievement and teacher value remain with factors considered by some researchers to be outside
the influence of teacher control. Staiger and Rockoff (2010) called for efforts to hire and retain
highly effective teachers yet referred to a number of factors, “estimation errors”, as interfering
with effects teachers have upon student achievement (pp. 101-102). Student achievement can be
impacted by variations found in classroom makeup and enrollment; factors not within control of
teachers (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Wainer, 2011). These variations are encountered by
teachers working with students who present behavioral and academic learning challenges.
This research relied upon survey, interview, and observation instruments, along with
review of archived documents to provide answers to a number of questions, including: Do
inclusion teachers take a student-centered approach or do the pressures of evaluations drive their
instructional practice? How do inclusion teachers view themselves and what drives their choice
and range of instructional practices? The following research questions framed the questions used
to survey and interview inclusion teachers and the protocol used during observations:
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

84
1. What are the dispositions of teachers who address the varying needs of students in an
inclusive classroom?
a. To what extent do these teachers perceive evaluative processes as influencing
their practice?
b. What are the correlations between dispositions and objective evaluative
scores?
The data collection instruments were administered to all participants. Document review
of archived VAM scores was available for nine of twelve teachers. Teachers’ responses to
surveys and interviews, and observed practices address research question one and a. Data for
research question b were collected from archived sources; VAM scores were available through
an online media forum (see Table 9).

Table 9
Summary of Methodology
Data Collection Instrument Participants Research Questions Addressed
Survey Four inclusion, eight resource
teachers
1.
Interview Four inclusion, eight resource
teachers
1. & a.
Observation Four inclusion, eight resource
teachers
1. & a.
Document Review (VAM
Scores)
Three inclusion, six resource
teachers
b.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

85
Pseudonyms represent the school and school district from which data were collected.
Teachers are referred to in the female pronoun, and by numbers; their specific grade levels are
not included with descriptions. The purpose is to protect the identities of all involved in this
research. Data was collected at Museum Park School (MPS) in Southern California School
District (SCSD). Twelve resource and/or inclusion teachers in grades kindergarten through five
participated in a survey, interviews, and observations. MPS is a high performing (API 919)
California Distinguished School where teachers institute inclusion practices with students from
broad cultural and linguistic demographics; students also represent a wide range of diverse
academic and social abilities (The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
2010). MPS teachers collaborate within and across grade levels, including Special Education
teachers, to serve gifted, English Learner, general ability, and special needs students.
Report of Findings
Teachers’ responses to surveys and interviews, and their observed practices are presented
within the context of three themes that are componential to the research questions. The themes
are related to teacher dispositions and include: students presenting learning challenges; student
achievement; and teacher evaluations. Data collected from surveys, interviews, and observations
were coded to the three themes (see Table 10). Documents reviewed were collected from
archived sources.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

86
Table 10
Research Themes and Instrumentation
Themes (Teachers’
Dispositions
Toward) Surveys Interviews Observations Document Review
Students presenting
learning challenges
Revealed teacher
dispositions through
responses related to
efficacy (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy,
2001).
Revealed teacher
dispositions through
teachers’ voiced
descriptions (Lee,
Cawthon, &
Dawson, 2013;
Loughran 2007).
Revealed teacher
dispositions through
actions; matching
what teachers feel
and say with what
they do (Darling-
Hammond, 2007;
Merriam, 2009).
Numerical value of
teacher effectiveness
(Hanushek &
Rivkin, 2010).
Student achievement Revealed teacher
dispositions toward
locus of control and
student efficacy
(Rueda, 2011).
Revealed teacher
dispositions toward
locus of control
through responses to
open-ended
questions (Lee,
Cawthon, &
Dawson, 2013).
Revealed teacher
dispositions and
interactive practices
with students (San
Martin and
Calabrese, 2010).
Numerical value of
teacher effectiveness
(Hanushek &
Rivkin, 2010).
Teacher Evaluations Revealed teacher
dispositions related
to attribution of
student achievement
(Fink, 2013).
Revealed individual
subjective
experiences and
dispositions
(Creswell, 2009).
Revealed impact
current evaluative
measures have upon
practices; subtle
influences (Merriam,
2009).
Numerical value of
teacher effectiveness
(Marder, 2013).

Research Question One
The purpose of this research question was to determine specific dispositions and
subsequent influences upon practices of teachers, who work in inclusion classrooms. A
sequence of survey and interview responses, followed by transcriptions of observation field notes
occurs under each of the three themes componential to the research questions.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

87
Surveys, Interviews, and Observations
Survey responses, interview responses, and data collected from observation field notes
were coded to the following research question themes: Teacher Dispositions and Students
Presenting Learning Challenges, Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement, and Teacher
Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations. The codes are broken down further for the purpose of
analysis based upon teacher responses and current literature within each discussion section.
Teacher dispositions and students presenting learning challenges. Responses to the
following survey and interview questions indicate how teachers felt and what they said about
students presenting learning challenges. These responses are compared against observation field
notes revealing how teachers interacted with students presenting learning challenges. Data
collected were coded under the research question theme “Teacher Dispositions and Students
Presenting Learning Challenges”.
Survey responses. The “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale” survey included scaled
response options of one through nine (Appendix D). Survey respondents marked within the
range of “5 Some Influence” to “9 A Great Deal” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). No
respondent marked below “Some Influence”. Averaged responses indicate teachers felt they had
“Quite a Bit” of influence regarding teaching students presenting learning challenges
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; see Table 11).
The following survey questions asked “How much” and “How well” teachers can work
with students presenting learning challenges. Questions about “difficult students, problem
students, individual students, defiant students, and capable students” relate to research in Chapter
Two describing challenging and at-risk students. Survey questions also addressed “disruptive
behavior, students who ask difficult questions, students who are noisy, students who show low
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

88
interest in school, and students who are failing” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The survey
questions describe students presenting learning challenges. Response choices attribute locus of
control over these challenges to teacher influence “A Great Deal (9)” or to other factors “No
[teacher] Influence (1)” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Table 11
Responses to Survey Questions (Students Presenting Learning Challenges)
Survey
Question
Some
Influence (5) (6)
Quite A Bit
(7) (8)
A Great
Deal (9) Averaged Responses
#1 1 2 5 2 2 Quite A Bit (7)
#3 8 1 3 Quite A Bit (7)
#4 1 2 7 2 Quite A Bit (7)
#7 4 6 2 Quite A Bit (8)
#14 2 3 5 2 Quite A Bit (7)
#15 1 1 7 3 Quite A Bit (7)
#16 1 3 6 2 Quite A Bit (8)
#17 9 2 1 Quite A Bit (7)
#19 3 3 4 2 Some Influence (6)
#21 2 2 4 4 Quite A Bit (7)
#24 7 4 Quite A Bit (7)
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

89
Teachers answered these survey questions with an average response of “Quite a Bit (7) or
(8)” with the exception of question 19 “How well can you keep a few problem students from
ruining an entire lesson?”; this survey question averaged “Some Influence (6)”. More than half
of respondents marked between “Quite a Bit (7)” and “A Great Deal (9)” for all of the following
questions except question 19; six respondents marked “Some Influence” and six respondents
marked “Quite a Bit” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). This question referred to how well
teachers are able to keep students presenting learning challenges from disrupting a lesson.
Interview responses. Interview questions six and seven focused respondents’ attention
and answers upon students presenting learning challenges and how they are identified within the
classroom. Interviewee responses illustrate the broad linguistic, academic, and social abilities of
students at MPS.
Each respondent answered question six “Describe a student who presents learning
challenges.” within the context of the current school year and provided multiple examples of
students who present learning challenges.
Teacher one described a student who was diagnosed with cancer (currently in remission)
at the age of one: “There’s a lot of challenges that he has, and I wouldn’t necessarily say that
they’re academic, but more also social. He had a really difficult time as a child.”
Teacher two described an English Learner who performs two grade levels below his
peers. She described how the student’s parents do not want to retain him and how she, as the
teacher, feels the situation is out of her control:
…we have done a lot of support, but at some point, I also have 24 other kids in my
classroom. I’ve had many conversations with the parents at the first month of school and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

90
I just figured they have the right for him to be in [this grade level]. They have a right for
their child to fail.
Teacher three referred to her background in special education as she described a current
student who presents learning challenges:
I have a student in my classroom right now, who is a little girl who has a visual
perceptual deficit. This is undiagnosed, but because of my background I have an
awareness of this. I know that this is a serious issue that she has. Because of it she is
having very significant trouble with math and with writing and organizing things on a
page. She has difficulty copying from the board and is also an English Language Learner.
But it is clear that it is not the English language that is the deficit that is causing her to
struggle with understanding and doing things.
Teacher four shared a student’s auditory strength, and how that strength is used to
compensate for the fact that she reads two grade levels below her peers:
She struggles with sounding out words and her independent reading level is hovering
somewhere around…a special day class [ability]. Except that when this student listens to
text, her literary analysis is very acute and meaningful. So, what do you do with that
when it comes to testing a student like that?
Teacher five’s response highlights the limits of measuring student achievement. The
student she described has been diagnosed with autism and has difficulty arriving to school on
time due to personal issues. This student excels in subject content that is currently not assessed
or linked to teacher evaluations:
He enjoyed performing. He enjoyed geography, he enjoyed history, so…if you say
differentiating instruction, it’s basically taking and bringing into the classroom things
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

91
that, not so much even changing what I’m doing as integrating what’s being in the
interests of the students in class. It wasn’t so much him being interested in what I was
teaching as much as it was me taking interest in what he liked that really helped hook him
in to coming to school and being at school and succeeding to a certain degree at school.”
The above responses to interview question six illustrate areas of challenge and
opportunities for growth that are not accounted in current evaluative measures linking student
achievement to teacher effectiveness. Silva Mangiante (2011) addressed a number of factors,
including student motivation, which researchers claim remain outside the control of teachers and
unaccounted for when measuring student achievement through such methods such as VAM (p.
46).
Responses to interview question seven “How do you identify students who present
learning challenges?” indicated teachers’ awareness of strategies to assist students presenting
learning challenges. Without hesitation, respondents answered these questions with multiple
examples. All respondents indicated they relied upon formal and informal assessments to
identify and track students’ achievement throughout the year:
Teacher one stated,
But really through assessment because you can’t really look at a child and think
something’s off or something’s wrong, you have to do a lot of assessing and you have to
do a lot just interacting and looking and seeing in terms of what skills that they’re lacking
in and why are they lacking on those skills and what — are we noticing a processing
issue?
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

92
Teacher three emphasized informal assessments, “I find that children who are in, let’s
call the normal range of cognition or ability behave a certain way. And children who are outside
of that, because of the disability or an emotional something going on behave differently.”
Teacher four described a formal approach: “Of course, by informal and formal measures.
I work closely with our resource coordinator… I also look at the previous year’s test scores.”
Teacher eight noted, “If it’s a lot of behavioral, I do a lot of anecdotal records, document,
various things, and try to keep in mind the range of ‘normal’ behavior for the age group and
academic test scores.”
Teacher nine indicated her proactive approach:
I’ve looked for the fact that, are they aware of what we’re learning? Do they make eye
contact when I speak with them? Can they point, for example, one-to-one
correspondence, very simple, very basic things? If I don’t see the basic skills, that’s when
I start to write up the SST forms and talk to the parents.
Teacher eleven’s reply emphasized the importance of knowing students well: “In the
beginning, it’s by their body language, and their ability to attend to instruction. Then I have to
evaluate whether they heard it and internalized it, but it just didn’t look like they were doing it.”
Most respondents to interview question seven described formal and informal assessments
and observations as part of their repertoire of practice. Mayer (2011) defined this type of
assessment as “pre-assessment”; an effort “…to know something about the learner, such as the
learner’s prior knowledge, interest, and learning ability” (p. 95).
At the end of each interview, teachers were asked if they would like to share insights
related to the line of questioning. This gave teachers an opportunity to expound upon
perceptions and dispositions related to students presenting learning challenges.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

93
Teacher three shared her thoughts about what it means to be a student who presents
learning challenges:
I think that, sometimes we forget when we talk about kids with learning disabilities, that
sometimes emotional disabilities keep you from learning. And though they are not called
learning disabilities, it impacts their learning. I think that we need to remember to include
those kids sometimes in what we’re talking about.
Teacher four shared a profound idea with regard to working as an inclusion teacher:
I would just like to say for the record, I just firmly believe in the inclusion
model…special day class has its area; I’ve definitely seen students that definitely need to
have that special day class setting. I deeply believe in mainstreaming where I’ve worked
with both our special day class and I’ve had our moderate to severe, I’ve had moderate to
severe students in my class, from Ms. Wilson’s class and Ms. Jones’s class before. I
really believe in that model and I will tell anyone who listens that working with the
clusters all those years has been like my master’s program, it has made me a better
teacher, and it’s made me understand students, those gifted kids that come into my
classroom that…the multiple diagnoses, where gifted kids are also ADHD or in the
spectrum or have emotional serious, like anxiety disorders and things of that nature. So, I
think working with the inclusion model, working with the resource cluster has really
taught me in a short amount of time the complexity of a student’s needs.
The preceding responses reveal a dispositional approach to teaching students who present
learning challenges. The following observation notes allow comparisons to be drawn between
what teachers feel and say in their survey and interview responses to what they do in the
classroom regarding students presenting learning challenges.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

94
Observation notes. Six categories, based on the checklist of elements by Merriam (2009)
served to frame the evidence collected through observation field notes: physical
structures/setting, classroom activities, conversations, students and teachers, student-teacher
interactions, and subtle factors (pp. 120-121). Observation field notes were transcribed from an
observation protocol (Appendix D). Transcriptions from several teachers’ observations will be
shared in the following section; however specific focus remains on teacher three and teacher four
related to the theme Teacher Dispositions and Students Presenting Learning Challenges. Many
similarities can be drawn between both teachers’ practices.
Physical structure/setting. Among the 12 teachers observed 10 (83%) arranged physical
classroom seating to facilitate cooperative learning; students were grouped four or more facing
each other. Two teachers had desks arranged in rows facing the front of the room. Teachers
two, three, and four provided fixed seating assignments for their students, but allowed movement
throughout the room when necessary.
Teacher three clustered together gifted students and English Learners in groups of two,
four, and seven. The seven English Learners were seated at the front of the classroom nearest
the multi-media teacher work station; which included a laptop, projector, audio and video
devices. Four students receiving Special Education Services through IEPs were seated
throughout the room clustered with gifted students, English Learners, and general education
students.
Teacher three introduced a hands-on fractions lesson through whole-class direct
instruction from her work station. According to teacher three, she purposely arranged her
English Learners to be within close proximity to herself during whole-class direct instruction.
This allowed for immediate access to students as teacher three checked for understanding, or
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

95
clarified/restated directions during instruction. A one-on-one aid assisted a student identified
with autism, who was placed within immediate vicinity of the teacher, but in a different group.
During the math lesson the aid refocused the student identified with autism on the lesson; she
used verbal and physical cues. Once students were directed to begin fractions math-work in
cooperative groups, the teacher moved throughout the room checking on progress.
The physical classroom arrangement allowed teacher three to differentiate the lesson:
gifted learners given challenging work; English Learners provided language support; students in
general and those with IEPs worked cooperatively with “more capable peers” or the teacher and
her aid (Scott & Palinscar, 2010, p. 2). Teacher three allowed a “free-pass” to students during
independent work time. Students were permitted to sit wherever they wanted in the classroom,
including with a friend, as long as no disruptions were made. It is important to note that teacher
three permited students who present learning challenges to have their lessons delivered to them
in a reasonable manner that is “comfortable” to the individual (see interview question nine
response under the upcoming theme Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement).
Teacher four arranged her classroom in a manner that facilitated transitions. Specific
lessons required certain groupings, which required that students move their desks together
quickly. Teacher four’s 32 students were clustered into five groups and seated close to the front
of the room and teacher work-station. This arrangement allowed the teacher close access to all
students when she directed lessons from the front of the room. Once students were assigned to
work independently, teacher four worked with individual students, who required assistance, one-
on-one at their assigned desks.
Classroom activities. The classroom activities observed for teacher three and teacher
four moved in a pattern from whole-class instruction to cooperative group and individual work.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

96
A level of noise was present in both rooms associated with students working cooperatively and
teachers checking small group and individual students’ understandings and progress. Students
appeared actively engaged in the lessons and work.
Conversations. Teacher three assumed familiar, friendly, conversational tones speaking
to her class as a whole, in small groups, and individually. Teacher four related to her students
through jokes and empathy. Both teachers maintained focus on student learning throughout the
observed lessons.
Students and teachers. Teacher three and teacher four carried the resource cluster
registers for their respective grade levels. Students presenting learning challenges included those
with varying academic and social abilities, but also included extenuating factors. The
extenuating factors described here include family crisis, attendance issues, economic hardship,
housing, and other. Teachers considered extenuating factors, along with academic and social
abilities, when planning and executing lessons. Teacher four worked with students who suffered
family crises. Two students’ parents died prematurely and one student underwent surgery for
severe physical ailments. Two students held IEPs and three more were under consideration
through SSTs for Special Education services. Three students attended a literacy intervention
program and ten students are identified gifted.
Student-teacher interactions. Both teacher three and teacher four were observed
interacting with students with positive, upbeat dispositions yet holding high expectations.
Following whole-class instructions, teacher three and teacher four attended to students identified
with special needs (IEPs and gifted) and to English Learners before checking on average
performing students. This observation was recorded based upon the classroom seating chart
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

97
filled out prior to observations. While the seating chart was drafted, teachers shared with the
researcher students’ names, needs, and performance abilities.
Subtle factors. Teacher three grouped her English Learners together for whole-class
direct instruction, but then allowed seating to change during independent work (see sub-section
“Physical Structure/Setting” above). Teacher four kept her students in their assigned cooperative
groups for the duration of instruction; students helped rearrange desks in preparation for their
writing activity. Both teachers spent minimal time directing, and the majority of their time
visiting individuals and small groups.
Teacher three allowed Anthony, a student identified as “twice exceptional” to work ahead
of his peers and complete more rigorous tasks: “Let me see what you’ve done. Excellent, now
show me examples fractions on the entire chart. I know you’re up for it!”
Teacher four spoke to Leon, a young boy diagnosed with gastrointestinal issues who
suffers from anxiety: “Leon, I assure you, you are going to love this writing assignment; I know
you’re interested in writing about dogs, tell me again what you plan to write?”
Upon entrance into teacher three’s and teacher four’s classrooms it was not possible to
decipher, based upon initial impressions or prolonged visits, students’ ability levels or special
needs eligibilities. This was consistent with all classroom visits throughout MPS. Conversations
with teachers provided information on classroom make up. The inclusive practices of teachers at
MPS placed students within heterogeneous ability groupings and classrooms. Resource
classrooms included students with gifted abilities, English language needs, general abilities, and
special needs. Students were grouped heterogeneously and homogenously based upon teachers’
lesson plans.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

98
Both teachers taught standards-based lessons. Teacher three provided a self-created,
hands-on fractions lesson. Teacher four prepared her students for an upcoming periodic writing
assessment set to occur at a later date.
Teacher three and teacher four each averaged in the high range of “Quite a Bit” in
response to survey questions coded under “Teacher Dispositions and Students Presenting
Learning Challenges”. Their interview responses indicated a familiarity with and comfort level
towards students presenting learning challenges in an inclusion classroom. Observations for
both teachers, particularly in seating arrangements for “Physical Structure/Setting, Student-
Teacher Interactions, and Subtle Factors” provide evidence that can be matched to how the
teachers feel and what they say about students presenting learning challenges.
Teacher dispositions and student achievement. Teachers’ responses to specific survey
and interview questions indicate how they felt and what they said about student achievement.
These responses are compared against observation field notes revealing what teachers did to
assist student achievement. The following collected data were coded under the research question
theme “Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement”.
Survey responses. The following survey questions asked “How much”, “How well”, or
“To what extent” teachers can help students presenting learning challenges (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2001). Specific survey questions addressed creativity, critical thinking, behavior
expectations, student motivation, classroom routines, lesson pacing, student comprehension,
assessment strategies, lesson redirection, family support, and differentiation of instruction.
These survey questions ask teachers about their influence over student achievement. Teachers
indicated their loci of control marking their choices on a range from “No Influence (1)” to “A
Great Deal (9)” of influence (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

99
Survey responses indicate that respondents felt they have “Quite a Bit” of influence over
questions associated with student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; see Table 12).
With the exception of number 18, one teacher alone marked “Some Influence” (5) or (6) to each
of the following survey questions. The remaining eleven teachers marked between “Quite A
Bit” (7) or (8) and “A Great Deal” (9) (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Three teachers marked
“Some Influence” (6) for question 18; which referred to the number of different assessment
strategies teachers use with students presenting learning challenges (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2001).

Table 12
Responses to Survey Questions (Student Achievement)
Survey
Question
Some
Influence (5) (6)
Quite A Bit
(7) (8)
A Great
Deal (9)
Averaged
Responses
#2 1 6 5 Quite A Bit (7)
#5 1 1 3 7 Quite A Bit (8)
#6 1 7 3 1 Quite A Bit (7)
#8 1 4 2 5 Quite A Bit (8)
#10 7 4 1 Quite A Bit (8)
#11 1 4 4 3 Quite A Bit (8)
#12 5 6 1 Quite A Bit (8)
#18 3 3 6 Quite A Bit (7)
#20 3 8 Quite A Bit (7)
#22 1 8 3 Quite A Bit (7)
#23 1 4 6 Quite A Bit (7)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

100
Interview responses. Interview questions eight and nine revealed teachers’ perceptions
about the effects of students who present learning challenges, have upon their own achievement
and revealed strategies used to assist these students in an effort to improve achievement.
Responses to interview question eight “How do you perceive the impact of students who
present learning challenges upon their achievement?” implied teacher awareness of individual
students.
Teacher two responded stating, “Sometimes you have a kid that will have areas that they
have challenges in. So, you try to work through their area of strength to get to their area of
weakness. So, you can be strategic in that way.”
Teacher five explained how she might accommodate students presenting learning
challenges:
…accommodations are made… and the idea is that you want everybody to succeed,
therefore you kind of set them up for success. If taking a test is difficult for them in the
sense of retaining knowledge and memorization, I would do things a different way:
There are those students that just have memory issues, so discuss the topic; they need
more time, that’s what I see always. The amount of time that some students need to
complete a test is always something I’m in favor of and support.
Teacher six answered,
The thing that concerns me most with the students that present a challenge is the, whether
it be struggling with the material or just struggling with attention and behavior, they get
so much less practice. I see that affects their achievement more than anything.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

101
Teacher eight described complexities faced by many teachers:
A lot of it depends on focus. So I’ve had some, for example, every day at recess, every
day at lunch, with conflicts, you have to find other outlets for them. But in class they’re
capable of doing very well in achievement tests. The same thing with academics, if
they’re able to focus they tend to do a lot better. In my experience, the students who you
have to redirect, redirect, redirect, if you miss that redirect then they miss that question.
Teacher nine answered empathetically,
I definitely noticed that they notice; that they are not progressing or they don’t have the
grasp of the standards or whatever they were learning, whatever their skills may be. They
know; they’re very keen on what they know and what they don’t know.
Teacher ten provided emphasis on how behavior affects learning:
…if they have behavioral challenges, then they don’t really have the space for academic
growth in many cases. I definitely believe that it’s important to get at the bottom of those
[behavior problems] and to help the child get to a place where they feel safe and they feel
that they can learn. And, trying to meet those behavioral needs as best we possibly can in
the classroom or at least to manage them, if not, meet them entirely.”
The above responses to interview question eight indicated a humanist approach that
seemed an undercurrent perspective shared by many MPS teachers. Cornelius-White (2007)
correlated “learner-centered teacher variables”, which include positive, empathetic student-
teacher relationships, with increases in student achievement (p. 134).
Responses to question nine “What strategies do you use to assist students presenting
learning challenges?” revealed teachers’ repertoires of instructional differentiation. Responses
also indicated that teachers differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs. Most teachers’
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

102
replies indicated efforts to recognize the strengths of students who present learning challenges
and using those individual strengths to improve areas of need:
Teacher three provided a unique response. Aside from providing differentiated lessons,
computer assisted learning, and tiered assignments, this teacher also allowed students with
autism and attention deficits to move about the room as long as they did not disturb classmates:
I literally had one child last year who had a box that he stood in and a roll of tape and he
must have layered three inches of tape on that box because that’s what made him able to
focus and calm down. And he stood in the box and he taped it. While he was taping, he
was listening. That’s how his lessons were delivered for several months. He was in that
box voluntarily. There was no lid so it was [laughter], it wasn’t anything bad.
Teacher four responded with a similar predilection to differentiation:
Well, I really believe in leveling the work. When I expect them to work independently I
try really hard to get them working on something I know they can achieve independently,
and when they’re kind of in the zone then you layer on the complexity or you push up the
next challenge.
Teacher five described a number of differentiation techniques: “…sitting up close,
giving them more one on one attention, allowing them to work on computers, giving them more
time, [and] offering them piece by piece, as opposed to full [instruction]. I can get the parents to
support them at home.”
Teacher six described a far more permissive approach to differentiation:
I am not the enforcer. I don’t know if I feel…obligated to try something with them, but I
don’t feel it is my place to force them into submitting to what I think is what they need. I
will call their parents and let the parents know what choices they’re making. I’ll let them
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

103
know that I’m aware of what choices they’re making. I’ll let them be aware of what goals
I have for them and why I feel it’s important and what I think it will allow them to do in
the future, but I’m not going to keep them in every recess and make them make-up work
until it’s exactly how I want it because I don’t think that creates achievement. I think it
creates resentment and it creates this idea that school is even more after that.
Teacher eight provided a very basic approach:
I try to sit them close to me, that doesn’t always work, pair them with students who are
more on task that seems to help a lot with most students. I have broken assignments into
smaller chunks when I have an aide that helps [chuckles], parent helpers to help students
stay on task. I try when it’s more than one or two steps to write the directions on the
board.
Teacher eleven offered a very specific response:
I can break reading down into small, small steps. Such small steps that they can feel some
achievement. But they have to get into that point. I would like to see them get into that
point where they go “Wait, I’m doing it. I can read”. And a lot of them already have that
feeling like ‘I don’t know why I can’t do this.’
Interviewees provided a number of strategies supported by research and practice. The
category for “Other” (see Table 13) includes permission for students to move about room
without disrupting classmates, use of “wiggle pillow” (Teacher four), inclusion of math-
manipulatives and SDAIE strategies (Teacher nine), and behavior-based token economy
(Teacher twelve).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

104
Table 13
Support Strategies Used to Assist Students Presenting Learning Challenges
Teacher
One-
on-
one
More Capable
Peer (Scott &
Palinscar 2010)
Assistive
Technology
Seating
Arrangement
Differentiated
Assignments
Parent
Assistance Other
1 (resource)
X
2 (inclusion)
X
3 (resource)
X X X
4 (resource)
X
5 (resource)
X X X X
6 (resource)
X
7 (resource)
X X X
8 (resource)
X X X X
9 (inclusion)
X X
10 (inclusion)
X X X
11 (resource)
X
12 (resource)
X X X

Teachers were given the opportunity to share their thoughts without the prompt of a
specific question. Teacher five shared her perspective about student achievement in lower
performing schools. She referred to the impact student achievement had upon teacher morale:
But that particular [low achieving] environment is really what I feel is those teachers, I
used to be one, don’t get credit. The system fails them in a sense that they think the
educational system is a failure because of [low achievement]. But I gave my blood, sweat
and tears to that school, to those kids. There’s always really a rug being pulled from you
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

105
when you look at your state test scores and everybody acted like somebody had died.
There was that sense of, ‘…what happened?’ It’s not as it should be if you’re selling cars
if you have a car lot. You know what I’m saying? If you really like to be competitive
about selling things and making money. Living in this cutthroat kind of lifestyle; where
that has a place in education in students and nurturing and all that stuff, I don’t see it.
Teacher five’s statement comments on narrowly defined student achievement measures.
The subsequent observation notes attempt to capture how teachers facilitate student achievement.
Observation notes. The six observation categories below are based on the checklist of
elements by Merriam (2009, pp. 120-121). Field notes were transcribed from an observation
protocol (Appendix D). Observations of teacher five and teacher six will be related to the
research question theme Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement in the following section.
Both teachers exhibited similar methods of instruction from implementation to student
interaction.
Physical structure/setting. Although two of the twelve observed teachers arranged their
physical seating in rows facing the front of the classroom, both teacher five and teacher six
allowed students to move into small cooperative groups of four after direct instruction was given.
Teacher five’s students moved to the floor, behind cabinets, near computer stations, and
around various parts of different desks to work on language arts projects. Teacher six conducted
a science lesson where gloved students moved into small clusters of four to excavate owl pellets
with tweezers. Teacher six stated classroom management and student motivation as major
factors contributing to the physical arrangement of her class. Students appeared highly
motivated and engaged in the science lesson. At any time during the lesson, all students were
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

106
facing the front of the classroom where the teacher provided posters, diagrams, supplies, and
directions.
Classroom activities. The lessons conducted by teacher five and teacher six were
interactive: both teachers moved from group to group; students of teacher six consulted various
charts and posters in an effort to identify, record, and compare skeletal remains of different types
of rodents; students of teacher five planned presentations for writing projects; and both
classrooms were noisy with the conversations of students working in cooperative groups.
Conversations. Teacher five played a far less active role in conversations than did
teacher six. Teacher five redirected students who got off-task to finish presentations related to
writing assignments. Teacher six supported English Learners and students with behavior and
educational plans, IEPs, throughout the lesson: she moved from group to group, checked for
understanding, engaged students in conversations about what they excavated, and encouraged
students to record their findings.
Students and teachers. Teacher five and teacher six carried the resource cluster registers
for their respective grade levels. One student mainstreamed from Special Day Class into each of
teacher five’s and teacher six’s classrooms. Two students, who are English Learners, had
recently moved to the United States and enrolled in teacher six’s classroom. Both classrooms
included students identified as gifted, students with IEPs, and general ability students. When
asked about students who may have experienced family crisis, teacher six described several
students of hers whose parents had divorced. Most of those students live with a single parent.
Both teachers described students who have attendance issues and often arrive to school an hour
or later each day.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

107
Student-teacher interactions. Teacher five and teacher six maintained highly
collaborative and lesson-focused interactions during the observed lessons. Teacher six described
how she handles a student, identified with Special Needs and the child of a single parent, when
he gets off-task and disruptive: “I give him a job. For example, you see that he is getting
rambunctious right now? I’m going to have him help clean up the science stations. I’m going to
give him a job.”
Teacher six immediately called the student over and in a kind tone asked if the student
would help with organizing clean-up. The student agreed and complied. Rambunctiousness
subsided.
Teacher five described a recent parent conference with a student who has attendance
issues:
I spoke with [the student] and his mom about the importance of getting to school on time.
I told [the student] that he has to help his mother get him to school, ‘You have to be
cooperative and help mom, I want you here so you don’t miss out on what we’re doing
[in class].’
Teacher five reports a small improvement in the student’s attendance with hopes of even
less tardiness. Both interactions underscore efforts made by both teachers to make meaningful
connections with their students in an effort to establish community and partnership within their
classrooms.
Teacher five and teacher six each averaged between a high level of “Some Influence (6)”
and “Quite a Bit (7)” in response to survey questions coded under Teacher Dispositions and
Student Achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Both stated allocating more time for
student work and testing as a common answer to interview question eight. Both teachers
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

108
indicated they solicit parent assistance in response to interview question nine. Both teachers
engaged their students in collaborative learning environments.
Subtle factors. Teacher five maintained a quiet class, allowing students to work
independently on self-selected projects. The atmosphere appeared interactive and collaborative,
yet students worked quietly. Teacher five worked with a small group of students whom she later
identified to the researcher as comprised of students presenting learning challenges (homogenous
grouping). The remaining students moved about the room and worked in preferred areas with
their cooperative groups. Teacher six maintained an active class where students engaged in
dialogic exchange with peers and the teacher. Students who participated in the handling of owl
pellet remains, appeared excited, and moved about the room to collect materials, tools and
consult the teacher. Teacher six frequented the groups where she identified, to the observer,
students who present learning challenges (these students were found grouped heterogeneously
throughout the classroom). She engaged these students to assure understanding of tasks and to
redirect those who were found to be off-task.
Teacher dispositions and teacher evaluations. The following responses to survey and
interview questions indicate how teachers felt and what they said about current evaluative
processes. These responses are compared against observation field notes (specifically “Subtle
Factors”) revealing how teachers interact with students presenting learning challenges
considering the pressures of the current evaluative process. The following data were coded
under the research question theme Teacher Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations.
Survey responses. The following survey questions asked “How much” teachers can help
students “value learning” and “follow classroom rules”. According to research, student
motivation plays a dominant role in how students achieve, which concurrently affects teacher
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

109
effectiveness ratings. Respondents were able to indicate a range of influence from “No Influence
(1)” to “A Great Deal (9)”.
Survey responses indicate that respondents felt they have “Quite a Bit” of influence over
student achievement as it relates to teacher evaluations (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; see
Table 14). One teacher marked “Some Influence” (5) or (6) for both survey questions. The
remaining teachers marked a response of “Quite a Bit” or higher. Both questions elicited
responses about how teachers can motivate student learning and get them to follow classroom
rules (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Table 14
Responses to Survey Questions (Teacher Evaluations)
Survey
Question
Some
Influence (5) (6)
Quite A Bit
(7) (8)
A Great Deal
(9)
Averaged
Responses
#9 1 6 4 1 Quite A Bit (7)
#13 1 3 6 2 Quite A Bit (8)
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001)

Interview responses. Interview question three revealed how evaluative measures
influence dispositions towards and practices with all students within the classroom, including
students presenting learning challenges.
Teachers qualified their yes or no answers to question three “Do evaluative measures
influence your dispositions with and practices toward students?” Three teachers answered “yes”
to this question, one teacher answered “yes and no”, and eight teachers answered “no”.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

110
Teacher two answered no and spoke to the value of mandatory assessments:
So, if we’re just saying, ‘How many kids moved from basic to proficient?’, ‘How many
went from proficient to advanced? If that’s what we’re really counting, that really
doesn’t inform instruction. That’s just a numerical statistic that someone thinks is of
value. In order to get a sense of whether a question is something we need to work on or
how we teach or methodology, we need to know what the instrument is. What are they
talking about ‘writing strategy’? What is the trend? We have none of that information.
Teacher three provided a pragmatic, affirmative answer:
When it comes to the testing evaluations, I always feel that I become very impatient with
those kids because they take more out of you and I am trying to please too many people
and then I get mad and I get very disappointed in myself and I become very depressed
quite frankly. And that can last for a month or so. Then I have to bring myself back to
saying, that isn’t the way to teach. I don’t care what my evaluation is. I don’t care what
the kids do. I am going to teach the way I know is right.
Teacher four countered: “No. I mean to speak frankly, no. But that’s within the context of
feeling very supported in my school site by my administrator and my colleagues and my
families.”
Teacher five concurred with teacher three, “Oh yeah. Most certainly. Of course. The
natural flow of things is taken out. It’s like a reality show. The real reality show is when the
camera’s not there. When the camera’s there, it’s a forced reality show.”
Teacher eight alluded to authenticity, as did teacher five, with her yes answer:
I think it influences more of the observed lessons than anything else, and sometimes the
observed lessons then, you’re honing your practice and it may change how you do things.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

111
I try to do a good job all the time, it obviously doesn’t always work, it’s not always a
home run.
Teacher nine answered without qualifying “No!”
Teacher ten answered no and spoke to the need for accountability (an unsolicited
response that 10 teachers stated be a necessary component to evaluations).
No. I mean I do understand that there should be some criteria. There should be some sort
of measure absolutely because our practice should be evaluated and we should have some
measure to evaluate our effectiveness so that we are, in fact doing, as we are needed and
intended to do as to teach them and educate them. So I do believe that there should be
some measure of the quality of the instruction that we implement.
Interview question three elicited emphatic responses from teachers; 75% of whom
answered no. This indicates that a majority of the teachers participating in the survey believe
evaluative measures do not influence how they perceive and work with students in general (see
Table 15).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

112
Table 15
Responses to Interview Question Three
Do evaluative measures influence your disposition and practices
towards students?
Teacher Yes No
1 (inclusion) X
2 (inclusion) X
3 (resource) X
4 (resource) X
5 (resource) X
6 (resource) X X
7 (resource) X
8 (resource) X
9 (inclusion) X
10 (inclusion) X
11 (resource) X
12 (resource) X

Teacher two responded to an opportunity to express her opinions about teacher
evaluations without the confines of a specific interview question:
It feels like the evaluation process the way it was set up was to a whole class lesson. It
would be nice to just have a…flexibility to do, if the need is there in that year, to do
targeted [sic] longitudinal small group things for kids that presented particular challenges.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

113
Her insights highlight a preferred approach to the evaluative process. Teacher two was among
the nine teachers who expressed disregard for the impact evaluative measures may have upon
practice. The following observations attempt to reveal cohesion between survey and interview
responses.
Observation notes. Four observation categories follow and are based on the checklist of
elements by Merriam (2009, pp. 120-121). Transcriptions were collected from an observation
protocol (see Appendix D). Observations notes for teacher two and teacher nine, along with
other teachers, will be shared below for the purpose of comparing what teachers say, to what
teachers do, concerning the research question theme Teacher Dispositions and Teacher
Evaluations.
Classroom activities. Teacher two conducted a music lesson followed by a math review.
Students worked cooperatively in their assigned desks on the vocabulary segment and later
moved to different locations in the room to rehearse. Students in this class were grouped
heterogeneously by ability. The lesson was structured as evidenced by the directions from, and
pacing by, the teacher. After thirty minutes students transitioned into a math lesson. Math
vocabulary words were reviewed prior to the lesson. Structure was evident based on observed
routines: students reviewed math problems during the “Be the teacher” segment and followed
specific verbal responses when at the white-board solving math problems. Students participated
in small-group and whole-class conversations and followed a specific structure to presenting
answers to math problems.
Teacher nine placed her students, by ability, into homogeneous groups of six. Student
groups rotated through art, math, reading, and writing centers. Aids/volunteers were stationed at
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

114
each center. The teacher remained at the art station. The teacher maintained a strict pacing
procedure and directed students to complete their work and then move to the next station.
Students and teachers. Teacher two and teacher nine practice inclusion, but are not
assigned resource cluster classrooms. Both teachers had classrooms consisting of gifted
students, English Learner students, and general ability students. There were less identified
students who present learning challenges as compared to counterparts in resource cluster
classrooms.
Student-teacher interactions. Interactions between teacher two and students, and teacher
nine and students, involved direct instruction and structure. Both observed lessons involved
emphasis on vocabulary development and following pre-established classroom procedures.
Subtle factors. Exertion of teacher control was an observable factor in the classrooms of
teacher two and teacher nine. Observed lessons for all twelve MPS teachers, appeared teacher
directed and followed a sequence of direct instruction followed by small group cooperation with
one-on-one teacher support.
Teacher two and teacher nine both indicated on survey question 9 “How much can you
do to help students value learning?” and question 13 “How much can you do to get children to
follow classroom rules?” that they have “Quite a Bit (8)” of influence. Both also answered that
evaluative measures do not influence their dispositions towards students. Both teachers
conducted quiet, well-structured lessons where students worked in small cooperative groups.
Data Summary Analysis for Research Question One
Survey responses indicate how teachers felt, within the context of individual, private
responses to questions. Interview responses indicate what teachers said, within the context of
being interviewed face to face with the researcher. Observation notes indicate what teachers did
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

115
regarding dispositions related to students presenting learning challenges, student achievement,
and teacher evaluations. Within each of the research question themes, collected data supported
the codes that emerged from teachers’ responses. Emerging codes will be discussed, relating the
survey and interview responses, to observation notes below.
Teacher Dispositions and Students Presenting Learning Challenges
Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs (2011) explained “teacher-student relationships” influence
teacher well being and perceptions of students who present challenges (p. 470). Nowhere are
these relationships more evident than within the data collected during classroom observations.
Teachers’ survey, interview, and observation responses indicated a certainty and immediacy of
individual perceptions/dispositions held regarding students presenting learning challenges.
Within the present heading (the research question theme), common responses emerged and more
themes were further analyzed. Teachers’ responses to surveys revealed how they attribute locus
of influence. Responses to interviews emphasized inclusionary perspectives about teaching.
Classroom observations contributed objectivity to survey and interview responses. Elements of
Merriam’s (2009) checklist were analyzed related to classroom observations. Specific elements
of “Student-teacher Interactions” and “Subtle Factors” will be analyzed below.
Survey responses. Teachers revealed locus of influence over students presenting
learning challenges. Survey responses revealed the degree to which teachers attributed locus of
control to either themselves or outside factors (Rueda, 2011). Averaged responses to specifically
coded survey questions indicate responding teachers felt they have “Quite a Bit (7)” of influence
with student presenting learning challenges. However, four survey questions stand out due to
distribution of responses from “Some Influence” to “Quite a Bit” of influence (Tschannen-Moran
& Hoy, 2001). Survey question 14, “How much can you do to improve the understanding of a
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

116
student who is failing?” included five respondents who marked “Some Influence” and seven
respondents who marked “Quite a Bit” of influence. Survey question 17, “How much can you
do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?” included eleven
respondents who marked “Quite a Bit” and one who marked “A Great Deal” of influence.
Survey question 19, “How well can you keep a few problem students from ruining an entire
lesson?” included six respondents who marked “Some Influence” and six who marked “Quite a
Bit” of influence. Survey question 21, “How well can you respond to defiant students?”
included four respondents who marked “Some Influence” and eight respondents who marked
“Quite a Bit” of influence (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Survey questions 14, 19, and 21 asked teachers about how much control they have over
students. Question 17 asks how much control teachers have over themselves. Jordan, Schwartz,
and McGhie-Richmond (2009) noted contrary opinions of general education teachers toward
inclusion despite evidence documenting the benefits for all students (p. 536). MPS teachers
indicated no contrary opinions about inclusion practices. It is important to note that the
variations in survey responses mentioned, included no teacher responses below the choice of
“Some Influence”. The survey developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) included
response choices not selected by any of the twelve MPS respondents: “Nothing (1 & 2)” and
“Very Little (3 & 4)” influence teachers may have over students presenting learning challenges.
Survey responses lack the ambivalence found in a later study by Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-
Richmond (2010) towards the benefits of inclusionary practices. “The school environment may
have a significant influence on teachers’ beliefs and their views about their roles and
responsibilities in inclusive settings” (Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010, p. 264).
Overall, the twelve teachers surveyed at MPS indicated positive perspectives about inclusionary
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

117
practices with students presenting learning challenges. Analysis related to school environment,
and administrator influence over this environment, occurs in the discussion of research question
part a. The following themes emerged from teachers’ responses to interview questions.
Interview responses. Each teacher interviewed shared their preferences for and
perspectives on inclusionary practices. Researchers raised concerns about ambiguous and
negative associations teachers make regarding inclusionary practices (Jordan et al., 2010; Ko &
Boswell, 2013; Reeves, 2009; & Ross-Hill, 2009). Survey and interview responses by teachers
at MPS revealed no ambiguous or negative dispositions towards inclusionary practices with
students presenting learning challenges. Research by McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman,
Cizman, and Lupart (2013) described collaboration among, and efforts by, inclusion teachers as
existing in progressive districts (p. 200). Teachers who ascribed themselves strong loci of
influence over students presenting learning challenges or with special needs, had positive and
willing outlooks upon inclusionary practices (McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, &
Lupart, 2013, p. 201). Interview respondents replied to research question six, “Describe a
student who presents learning challenges”, with references to their current school year and
students who had general needs, special needs, were gifted or who were English Learners.
Six teachers described students with special needs in response to interview question six.
Each teacher voiced genuine concern about individual student needs and some described
students’ strengths in their replies. Teacher one described a student’s literary strengths as a
means to improve his ability to follow directions. Teacher three spoke of a student who has
undiagnosed special needs, but cited her background in special education. Teacher three’s
background influences her interactions with students as will be discussed in the “Observation
Notes”, “Subtle Factors” section below.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

118
Teacher five described a student with autism who had difficulty getting to school on time
each day. This particular student’s preferences and academic strengths included participation in
plays and social studies as opposed to other academic areas. Teacher five perceived these
favored academic subjects as a means to encourage her student’s participation and motivate
efforts to arrive at school on time daily. Teacher eight contrasted positive with negative
experiences with students who have special needs. She described her abilities to affect positive
outcomes for students as contingent upon how parent expectations and efforts to assist are
aligned.
Two teachers identified gifted and high-achieving students in response to interview
question six. Teacher eleven described gifted students as those who are “developmentally
lacking”. She described these types of students as the most challenging, referencing their
abilities in contrast to their maturity. Gates (2010) addressed the negative effects upon gifted
learners such labels can have, associated with teacher expectations. Teacher eleven’s response
indicates a disposition toward recognizing students beyond singular labels and working with
people who have needs (Gates, 2010, p. 205).
Four teachers (one teacher’s reply overlapped special needs and English Learners)
identified English Learners when responding to interview question six. Teacher six described
the importance of staging success for English Learners through differentiated instruction.
Teacher six incorporated reading numbers, knowing math to be a particular strength of her
newest arriving English Learner, into a conversation about math. When the student correctly
read a number in the millions, “The class erupted into applause, and I felt really good about it.”
By contrast, teacher two described an English Learner with low academic skills.
Contrary to survey responses indicating teachers’ perceptions of influence with students as
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

119
strong, teacher two stated “…it’s out of my control” regarding the low achieving student whose
parents will not cooperate with retention efforts: “They have a right for their child to fail.” It is
important to note that teacher two, who averaged 7.58 “Quite a Bit” of influence on her surveys
marked “Some Influence (6)” to survey questions 14 and 19; each addressed how much a teacher
can influence a “failing” student and how well a teacher can mitigate the effects of “problem
students” respectively. It is also worth noting teacher two’s VAM score of “Most Effective
Overall” (see Table 20).
Teacher eight qualified her description of the abilities of the student as lying outside the
identification of English Learner. Reeves (2009) upheld the importance of teachers seeing
beyond such labels as English Learner and not ascribing student ability solely to English
proficiency.
Although teachers were each interviewed separately, responses to interview question
seven, “How do you identify students who present learning challenges?” identified informal and
formal observations.
Teachers’ descriptions of informal observations ranged from simple anecdotal records of
body language, eye contact, conversational, and fine and gross motor skills of their students to
interviews/surveys of student interests, teacher-made assessments, writing assignments,
accessing achievement data and cumulative records, and conferencing with parents. The
following section addresses observed lessons at MPS.
Classroom observations. Observations allow data collection of actual practices to be
compared with the survey and interview data regarding teachers’ dispositions and students
presenting learning challenges. It is pertinent to note that while 10 out of 12 teachers arranged
their class seating into cooperative groups of four or more and all teachers moved their students
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

120
into cooperative groups at certain times during the lessons, all lessons followed a pattern moving
from teacher direction (whole-class) to student work (small-group and independent) while
teachers moved from group to group or student to student providing support.
Evidence was observed in both teacher three and teacher four’s classrooms that support
positive interactions between students and their teachers. Allen et al., (2013) identified teachers
who emotionally support their students, provide organized classrooms, and lend academic
support according to needs, have a positive effect over students presenting learning challenges
(p. 77). This requires teachers to have profound understandings of their students; understandings
that move beyond student achievement data and special needs. Prior to classroom observations,
teachers revealed information about students who present learning challenges, which were
recorded as seating charts were mapped. Details follow as “Subtle Factors”.
Teacher three described her understanding of a student on a level deeper than
achievement data: a high-achieving student who has an eating disorder, “Aside from working
with the school psychologist to emotionally support her and be there for her, I try to make this
room a place where she might feel safe to make mistakes and not be so hard on herself.”
Teacher three afforded attention for all her students, appeared to know when and for how long to
interact with students, and overtly sought to support and help students, such as the girl described
here and the girl with an undiagnosed visual perceptual disorder described during her interview.
Continuing in the same vein, teacher four described a number of students who live in
single parent homes due to divorce and untimely parental death. She described academic
progress as important for these students, “…but feeling supported and safe are equally
important.” She mentioned the fact that one student who lost his mother to cancer has not had an
emotional breakdown this year. This could be attributed to the familiar and safe environment
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

121
observed in the classroom of teacher four. Sayeski and Brown (2011) described genuine concern
for well-being shown by teachers to students as “hypodermic affection”; the teacher deliberately
gives students attention and shows kindness (p. 13). During her interview teacher four stated,
“And so that’s why I feel like a foundational aspect of my teaching philosophy is positive
energy, love, lots of love, patience.”
A candid moment observed in teacher four’s class occurred when, before recess, a nanny
brought the teacher’s infant daughter to the classroom for feeding. Teacher four allowed her
students to interact with the baby, to the point of touching the baby’s foot to the shoulder of one
of the aforementioned students in mock-kick repetition and joking, “Stop kicking him, stop it,
stop kicking him!” to which all students erupted in laughter. Ko and Boswell (2013) correlated
teacher dedication to, and value of inclusionary practices, to positive outcomes for all students
including those with special needs (p. 230). Such practices and values facilitate environments
where students feel safe to achieve. Analysis of how teachers perceive student achievement
follows in the next section.
Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement
Munoz, Scoskie, and French (2013) argued that while teacher effectiveness influences
student achievement, measures such as VAM do not provide a complete picture of teacher
effectiveness. Teachers who provide “…physically and emotionally safe learning
environments…” promote student achievement (Munoz, Scoskie, & French, 2013, p. 225).
These findings have implications for understanding teachers’ predispositions. Although VAM
links student achievement to teacher effectiveness and in some cases teacher compensation, it is
difficult to correlate teacher effectiveness with observable teacher characteristics (Fryer, 2013).
Teachers’ survey responses revealed perspectives about locus of influence upon student
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

122
achievement. Interview responses share a perspective that students’ challenges affect their
achievement and require accommodations. Classroom observations recorded efforts made by
teachers to actively engage their students.
Survey responses. Teachers revealed locus of influence over student achievement.
Responses to specifically coded survey questions were averaged and indicate teachers felt they
have “Quite a Bit (7)” of influence with student achievement overall. Survey question five “To
what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior?” stands out. Seven
teachers responded to this question marking “A Great Deal (9)” of influence. Four teachers
marked “Quite a Bit (7) (8)” of influence, and one teacher marked “Some Influence (5)”. This
indicates that most MPS teachers surveyed, feel the locus of control regarding student
achievement can be related to how they make learning and behavior expectations clear. Jordan
et al. (2009) described teachers holding “Interventionist beliefs” as holding themselves
responsible for helping all students, especially students with special needs, access curriculum and
achieve academically (p. 538). The following themes emerged from teacher responses to
interview questions.
Interview responses. Each teacher interviewed shared their perspective that students’
challenges affect student achievement. Most respondents to interview question eight “How do
you perceive the impact of students presenting learning challenges upon their own
achievement?” qualified by stating that the impact depends upon the challenge. Coupling survey
question responses, with interview question responses, under the research question theme related
to student achievement, indicates MPS teachers have an understanding of the range of student
achievement diversity yet hold themselves accountable for student achievement. Downy (2008)
suggested that classroom cultures supportive of student achievement, particularly with students
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

123
presenting learning challenges, include: clear expectations, student accountability, empathy,
caring students and teachers, and authentic student engagement in meaningful learning (p. 59).
Teachers demonstrated understanding and empathy in the following ways:
Teacher nine joined the majority of interview respondents citing negative impacts of how
student challenges affect achievement, “I definitely notice that they notice.” Teacher eleven
echoed the sentiment, “Well, I think the first thing is that they know something’s wrong.”
Teacher four asserted, “And then I’ve had students who were too scared to even pick up a pencil
because they’ve been…they’re deeply self-aware, and they know where their weaknesses are.”
Corkett, Hatt, and Benevides (2011) found that students who have learning challenges also have
low self-efficacy. This can make improving achievement difficult, for teachers with high self-
efficacy. Several teachers responded that knowing students’ challenges is important to helping
students begin to address the challenges through individual strengths. Corkett et al. (2011)
suggested that teachers who are aware of students’ levels of self-efficacy are suited to help build
achievement starting from students’ strengths (p. 93).
Teacher two described working through a student’s “strength” to improve her/his
“weakness” as a strategy to improving achievement. Teacher five emphasized setting students
“…up for success…” This approach for improving student achievement requires understanding
students on deep and meaningful levels. Jordan et al., (2009) described effective teaching as
“The propensity and skill to engage each student in the classroom and thereby to develop a
teacher-student relationship that promotes learning…” achievement (p. 541).
Each participating teacher listed between one and four accommodations they have
utilized in an effort to improve student achievement. Table 13 illustrates strategies and
accommodations teachers identified to assist students presenting learning challenges in response
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

124
to interview question nine “What strategies do you use to assist students presenting learning
challenges?” Teachers’ accommodations reflect strong understandings and practices regarding
inclusion. “The elements and purposes of accommodations include a number of facets: the
term’s definition, elimination of barriers to access, identification of construct-irrelevant
interference, and the creation of a ‘level playing field’” (Byrnes, 2008, p. 307). MPS teachers’
responses, presented in Table 13, exemplify individual attempts to level the playing field
regarding student achievement. Classroom observations, analyzed below, showcase teachers’
active engagement efforts; a sanguine effort to provide unobstructed access to the curriculum and
subsequently, to improved student achievement.
Classroom observations. Alter, Walker, and Landers (2013) described active
engagement as a primary means of mitigating problems and keeping students, particularly those
who present learning challenges, on-task in the classroom (p. 65). Each observed teacher,
instituted active student engagement as part of their teaching repertoire. Students were moved
from whole groups to small groups, or to different locations within the room, to participate in
cooperative learning. Teacher four was the only teacher observed to allow her students to sit or
“learn” wherever they chose within the classroom, with the contingency that they not disturb
classmates. The other teachers allowed seating rearrangement and cooperative groupings, but at
theirs and not students’ discretion.
Active engagement took the form of reading, writing, and interactive art centers in the
classrooms of teachers one, seven, nine, and eleven. Teacher three and teacher six provided food
manipulatives for fractions, and excavating materials for science, respectively. Teacher two and
teacher four engaged their students in elements of what Oliveira (2010) described as discourse
structure of inquiry-based lessons. Both teachers reiterated students’ responses, lending
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

125
“authority”, “voice”, and student ownership to answers and contributions related to respective
math and writing assignments (Oliveira, 2010, p. 263). Evidence of high teacher expectations
was found in lesson designs. Teachers engaged students in lessons and expressed expectations
clearly, consistently, procedurally, positively, and efficiently (Sayeski & Brown, 2011, p. 10).
Teachers’ efforts to actively engage their students, influence students’ achievement, and in turn,
teachers’ evaluations.
Teacher Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations
Staiger and Rockoff (2010) promoted using evaluative systems that amalgamate
“imperfect measures of teacher effectiveness” with classroom observations and alternative
professional entrance and dismissal ports as means to attract and retain effective teachers (pp.
114-115). These recommendations speak to the climate of current evaluative processes and
efforts to ascribe numerical values to teacher influence over student achievement. Silva-
Magiante (2010) highlighted factors that affect student achievement such as home environments
and student motivation for which teachers have no control (p.136). Concern for these and other
factors were raised by MPS teachers during interviews. Matulla (2011) clarified that attendance
issues vary individually. Missed time in school, whether consecutive or dispersed across the
year, impact students and teachers. Idiosyncrasies in rates of attendance demean students’
learning and achievement, while negatively affecting a teacher’s value. Teachers have little
control over tardiness and truancy (Matulla, 2011, p. 104). Consideration of these factors
requires the use of diverse evaluation indicators for teacher effectiveness along with VAM
(Silva-Magiante, 2010, p. 51). Teachers’ responses to survey questions were used to correlate
locus of influence with how students impact teacher evaluations. Responses to interview
questions revealed the influence teachers correlate between their students and teacher
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

126
evaluations. Classroom observations noted exertion of teacher control over student behaviors
and over lesson design and implementation.
Survey responses. Teachers revealed locus of influence over their own evaluations.
MPS teachers’ responses to the survey questions coded to the research question theme “Teacher
Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations” believe they hold “Quite a Bit (7)” of influence over
teacher evaluations as influenced by student behavior and classroom routine. Teachers use a
repertoire of classroom procedures and rules to promote effective learning (Mundschenk, Miner,
& Nastally, 2011).
Interview responses. Teacher interviews solicited perspectives about teacher
evaluations. Nine out of twelve MPS teachers stated “No” to interview question three, “Do
evaluative measures influence your disposition with and practices toward students?” This
question addressed students in general as opposed to interview question eleven. Interview
question eleven, “Do current evaluative measures influence your practice with students
presenting learning challenges?” will be discussed later as part of research question a, and
comparisons will be drawn between responses to these two interview questions.
Three teachers answered with degrees of ambivalence, however the remaining nine
responses of either yes or no were provided emphatically or pragmatically. Several ne and ye
responses included qualifications about relevance. Researchers have found teachers to be
resistant to or fail to see the relevance of evaluations considered exogenetic (De Witte & Rogge,
2011; & Sullivan, 2012). Loony (2011) lent description to evaluations perceived to be invalid,
based upon inconsistency in application and relevancy to individual contexts (p. 440). Teacher
three’s response of “Yes” included an explanation that the way evaluations have been used
interfere with her practice of teaching what she thinks is “…the right way to teach.” Teacher
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

127
four qualified her response of “No”, highlighting the collaborative context of her school site in
support of her differentiated teaching methods. These responses reflect a general sentiment
found among all MPS teachers. Teachers felt supported in decision making by peers and the
MPS administrator.
Classroom observations. Observation records show a common theme of exertion of
teacher control among the twelve participating teachers. Evidence of active engagement and
teachers’ support of students’ contributions, Oliveira (2009), coincided with teacher-controlled
lessons. MPS teachers exercised teacher-control over student behavior and lesson pacing. While
actively engaged, students were told when to move about their rooms, excepting student seating
choices permitted by teacher three. Teachers engaged students on how to respond to prompts
and questions. Teacher two required her students to respond in a prescribed format while “being
the teacher” at the white board. Students selected by teacher two to go to the white board wrote
out math problems and recited “The missing factor is…”, “The missing quotient is…” Teachers
did not deliberately “avoid” evaluating accuracy in students’ responses and “explanation”
(Oliverira, 2009, p. 248). Such accuracy in response practices was observed in many
classrooms.
Teachers demonstrated kindness and persistence with students, however accurate
responses to language arts, math and other curricular assignments was emphasized during verbal
exchanges. This common practice was observed of teacher one, teacher two, teacher seven,
teacher eight, teacher nine, and teacher eleven. Fryer (2013) argued the importance of teacher
knowledge regarding inputs, teacher effectiveness, and outputs, student achievement, regarding
incentivized measures and the evaluative process (p. 404). The outputs hinge upon teachers
knowing how to help students improve their learning and achievement; teacher knowledge and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

128
effectiveness are the emphasized inputs. The following section addresses part a of research
question one, “To what extent do these teachers perceive evaluative processes as influencing
their practice?”
Research Question A
The purpose of this research question was to determine if the pressures of the evaluative
process, specifically linking student achievement to teacher value, have bearing upon inclusion-
teachers’ practices. A sequence of interview responses, followed by transcriptions of
observation field notes, occurs under each of the three themes componential to the research
questions. As indicated in Table 9, survey data was used to address research question one alone.
Interviews and Observations
Interview responses and data collected from observation field notes were coded to the
following research question themes: Teacher Dispositions and Students Presenting Learning
Challenges, Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement, and Teacher Dispositions and
Teacher Evaluations. The codes are broken down further for the purpose of analysis based upon
research literature and teachers’ responses to interview questions and observed practices: teacher
ability/locus; and students with special needs (GATE and Special Education services), family
crisis (divorce, trauma), and learning English.
Teacher dispositions and students presenting learning challenges. Responses to the
following interview questions reveal perceptions about the current evaluative process and
indicate if they influence how teachers interact with students presenting learning challenges.
These responses are compared against classroom observations of interview respondents. The
following data were coded under the research question theme “Teacher Dispositions and
Students Presenting Learning Challenges”.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

129
Interview responses. Responses to interview questions ten and eleven, reveal
perceptions about how being an inclusive teacher working with students presenting learning
challenges affects evaluations, and whether current evaluative measures influence dispositions
toward and practices with students presenting learning challenges.
Interview question ten asked, “Do you perceive that being an inclusive teacher who
works with students presenting learning challenges affects your evaluations? If so, how?” Six
out of twelve teachers answered yes. Two teachers answered both yes and no; qualifying “yes”
with district-mandated evaluations and “no” with how evaluations are used by the current
administrator of MPS. Three of the teachers who answered no to this question, indicated they
felt safe because of how their administrator implements the evaluative process. Most responses
to this question emphasized the positive influence the current administrator plays upon the
evaluation process as implemented at MPS.
Teacher three gave both a yes and no answer to this question:
Honestly, I don’t think it effects my evaluations in the school. I think it absolutely affects
my evaluations if the District is looking at students’ test scores because my students who
are learning disabled or who are even not learning disabled, but who are double identified
as gifted and hyperactive, don’t do well on tests. Some of my most brilliant students fail
these standardized tests.
Teacher six gave a response indicating that working in an inclusion class “somewhat” effects
evaluations:
In my present evaluation process, I had an informal observation with my principal and
her boss and there was one area that was scored less “stellar” and it had to do with
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

130
dealing with these difficult students. I must say, I think it’s very subjective how people
expect you to handle these difficult students.
Teacher seven stated yes: “I think so, because from what I know, how they evaluate,
they don’t take into consideration the makeup of your class; disabilities, ELD levels. It’s one-
note, a general class. It’s what I think.”
Teacher ten answered affirmatively:
If you have a student that presents [you] with serious behavioral challenges, it can totally
disrupt your management, which then disrupts your instruction which, in this case, would
then affect your evaluation. So I definitely believe that they would have that effect and
they could have that effect. But, by the same token, I believe that those students have to
be included.
Teacher eleven answered no, but qualified: “I have to say that I think it probably affects
the way people look at me.”
Teacher twelve responded yes to this question, “I think when being evaluated it’s
important to consider the types of students that are in your classroom. Whether they have
learning challenges, or any disabilities, whether they’re proficient, advanced, it’s important to
consider the student population.”
Interview question eleven was used to ask, “Do current evaluative measures influence
your practice with students presenting learning challenges?” Nine teachers answered no; three
answered yes.
Teacher three stated “No”, but then elaborated:
…I get panicky sometimes and I drop everything and go, ‘Okay, I’ve got to teach to the
test’ and then I go, ‘No I don’t.’ And I stop. Because the truth is, I teach test taking skills
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

131
and thinking skills and analytical skills and comprehension skills all year long. I don’t
need to stop and teach to the test, but I get panicked about it. So, I do. It usually lasts
about a week and then I just go, ‘This is stupid. I’m not going to do it.’
Teacher four answered no,
Because I feel my administrator is sensitive to my ability to differentiate, and so I feel
like my goal is to meet the students at their level of need, not to just be focused on test
scores or teaching to the test.
Teacher five answered yes and made a comparison to an under-performing school in
which she previously taught,
because of the fact that the students perform so well, especially in math, it’s almost not
fair because I’m the same math teacher as I was before [coming to MPS] and what
exactly the difference is all of the things that teachers have no control: parental education,
parental income, speaking the language.
Teacher seven responded affirmatively to this question and spoke to the pressures the
evaluative process creates in the classroom:
You want to reach for a high-score to represent yourself. What teacher would want a low
score and to be perceived as ‘you’re not capable, you’re a poor teacher’? It’s seeing
everything bigger picture. You have to do your best in your teaching methods every day.
And you have to think about how well you’re presenting your kids and testing them. It’s
a lot more responsibility.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

132
Teacher nine’s response of no indicates her understanding of factors over which she has
no control:
Not necessarily. I still want to do what I think is the best thing for these kids. At the same
time, if they don’t progress the way I want them to, then I have to let certain things go
because I realized, after all of these years, not everything is under my control. Some of it
is, but I have them for 180 days.
Teacher ten spoke about assertive discipline and students presenting learning challenges:
“No…My approach to those students [presenting learning challenges] is and has been the same
in terms of working to, not really change the student, but to manage the behavior.”
Teacher eleven answered no with a qualification: “What affects my practice with these
students is just learning more about them and learning about how to help. I mean going to gifted
conferences, going to things that help me get more strategies for helping.”
A common response that resonated among the twelve inclusion teachers at MPS
emphasized the positive school climate around the evaluative process, which the administrator
helped create. Interview questions ten and eleven were designed to elicit yes or no responses
followed by qualifiers. During the interviews teachers elaborated upon the school culture of
safety and trust they believed the current administrator of MPS helped create around the
evaluative process (see Table 16).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

133
Table 16
Compared Responses to Interview Questions 10 and 11
Teacher
10. Do you perceive that being an
inclusive teacher who works with
students presenting learning
challenges affects your evaluations?
And if so, how?
11. Do current evaluative measures
influence your practice with students
presenting learning challenges?
1 (resource) Yes Yes
2 (inclusion) No No
3 (resource) Yes/No No
4 (resource) No No
5 (resource) Yes No
6 (resource) Yes Yes
7 (resource) Yes Yes
8 (resource) Yes/No No
9 (inclusion) No No
10 (inclusion) Yes No
11 (resource) No No
12 (resource) Yes No

Teacher ten took an opportunity to share her thoughts about students presenting learning
challenges without the prompt of an interview question:
Their behavior is not who they are so you don’t judge that student’s core and person by
their behavior. You just deal with behavior. With that in mind, that student is always
given the same respect even when they are exhibiting extreme behavior. The goal is to
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

134
extinguish the behavior and help that child get to the place where they can function
behaviorally in the general setting. That’s very challenging at times, but it’s one of those
things that you have to bring yourself back to constantly because then it becomes
personal if you don’t. I think that’s very detrimental to the student and to the teacher
because it never is personal.
Teacher ten’s insights reveal a disposition to working with students presenting learning
challenges. The observation notes that follow reveal depth and practice of the same disposition.
Observation notes. The six observation categories that follow are based on the checklist
of elements by Merriam (2009, pp. 120-121). Specific observations of teacher seven and teacher
ten will be presented, along with practices of all MPS teachers, below.
Physical structure/setting. Teachers one, seven, nine, and ten physically arranged desks
into small cooperative groups of four and six, however students had no assignment to one
particular desk. During the observed language arts lessons in each of these rooms, students
assigned to small cooperative groups moved to different stations when signaled to move by their
teachers. In each class, aids were stationed at the various groups to facilitate writing,
vocabulary, and math assignments.
Classroom activities. Teachers remained at central stations where all students eventually
rotated through in 15 to 20 minute intervals.
Conversations. Whole-class instruction was followed by small-group cooperative
learning and one-on-one support with teachers.
Students and teachers. Teacher seven was assigned the resource cluster for her grade
level while teacher ten practiced inclusion, but did not carry a resource cluster. Teacher ten
described one of her English learning students as a selective mute. This particular student has
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

135
not and does not speak at school to peers or adults. She speaks a home language other than
English and has been reported by parents to be selectively mute occasionally. This student was
paired with peers who cooperate with her in activities where non-verbal responses are accepted,
such as the observed dance and vocabulary lessons. This student physically interacted with
peers. The teacher interacted with her through written, verbal/non-verbal cues (teacher), and
non-verbal responses (student).
Student-teacher interactions. Teacher seven and teacher ten interacted with their students
one-on-one and in small cooperative groups. Teacher seven stationed herself at a reading center
and had students rotate through many stations, including hers. Teacher ten assigned vocabulary
work to students and seated herself next to the student described as selectively mute to provide
language support.
Subtle factors. Teacher ten assigned seating to a selective mute student with peers who
were understanding, kind, and helpful. Teacher ten also accepted non-verbal responses from this
student and encouraged her participation in class activities. To date, this student has not spoken
to classmates or the teacher, but participates in all activities with classmates.
Both teacher seven and teacher ten affirmatively answered interview question ten, that
being inclusive teachers who work with students presenting learning challenges affects their
evaluations. Teacher seven attributed the affects to student ability levels based on disabilities
and English abilities. Teacher ten attributed the affects to student behavior, which she clarified
can be controlled. Both teachers diverged in their responses to interview question eleven.
Teacher seven answered yes, that current evaluative measures influence her practice with
students presenting learning challenges. Teacher ten answered no, referring, as in question ten,
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

136
to the fact that she approaches, addresses and manages the behavior of her students. Both
teachers exhibited similar patterns in their survey, interview, and observation responses.
Teacher dispositions and student achievement. Interview questions indicate what
teachers said about student achievement in relation to possible influences of current evaluative
processes. These responses are compared against classroom observation field notes. The
following data were coded under the research question theme “Teacher Dispositions and Student
Achievement”.
Interview responses. Interview questions four and five reveal teachers’ understandings
of, and how they see, the current evaluative processes. Nine responses to question four, “How is
student achievement linked to your evaluations?” reveal that teachers understand the current
evaluative process; three stated misgivings about their understanding.
Teacher seven answered question number four as follows:
The measure makes it seem like if the student does well [on standardized assessments]
that shows you’re an excellent teacher. But if a student does not do well, because of ELD
or IEP, then you’re a bad teacher. It’s a one sided thing. You’re either great for scoring
this many points or you’re a bad teacher for getting a low score.
Teacher eight’s reply implied a degree of uncertainty: “I’m not sure it is. Usually the
lessons you do for evaluation are very structured and very task oriented and very specific in what
you’re looking for, the goal is written down... I’m not sure.”
Teacher eleven answered with uncertainty as well: “So, what I get is kind of a mixed bag
in terms of [achievement levels] and I just try to meet their levels, whatever those levels are.”
Teacher twelve responded in the same vein of “good performance vs. bad performance”
on question four related to teacher evaluations:
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

137
If my students performed better or show more growth over time, I think that would help
me to get a better score on my teacher evaluation. If my students showed less growth
overtime or didn’t perform well, I think I’d evaluate poorly; where I’d receive a lower
score.”
Ten responses to question five “How do you feel about linking student achievement with
your evaluations?” included unsolicited statements that teacher evaluations should include
measures of student achievement.
Teacher one stated that she believed it “unfair” to link student test scores to teacher pay,
in her response to question number five:
Test scores is such a small portion of how well our students are performing, it doesn’t
always also look at the improvement that we’ve seen in a daily basis, and some children
might improve, might make amazing feats this school year…
She later stated that test scores do not show the whole student.
Teacher two responded to question five by pointing out how mandated assessments do
not link to authentic teaching:
Again, what we are talking often times about are these measures that we really have very
little - we have no connection to because they are already done. They are imposed upon
us and therefore they are not organic to what our teaching is.
Teacher eight expressed concern over formal evaluative processes:
I don’t like the value added; I’ve taught in some very difficult schools. Some degree of it
I think is reasonable but, for example, if a student... his mom did drugs while…pregnant
and then the student has certain attention problems and you do your best, but that doesn’t
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

138
mean they are going to pass the test. Even though they did their best and they improved,
it might not be the number the district is looking for.
Teacher nine replied that she is “okay” with linking student achievement to teacher
evaluations, “We are trying to get them to achieve. So, whatever that I teach and whatever I
convey to my students, it is related to how they achieve.”
Teacher eleven was ambivalent in her response to question five: “I think there is a place
for it but I don’t think it’s handled correctly. I don’t think that the evidence is reliable that
they’re using right now or that they’re planning to use. I don’t think it’s reliable evidence.”
Table 17 shows that nine teachers expressed an understanding of the current evaluative
process when they answered interview question four. Three teachers indicated they did not have
a good understanding of the process. Ten teachers responded to question five with elaboration
about their belief that evaluations should include a link to student achievement. Two teachers
did not make this elaboration.
Teacher eleven expressed her preference to help students who present learning challenges
with achievement:
I taught special-ed. for a long time [before moving to general education] and I like
[inclusion class] because it is special ed. You get children that come in with these
problems and you are going, ‘Wow, what is this? I have to really study this!’ To me it is
a challenge and it is interesting. I would never want to have a class where there are kids
without disabilities because to me that is boring.
Many teachers spoke about the importance of measuring student achievement outside the
narrow margins of current evaluative systems. The following observation notes illustrate how
inclusion teachers supported student achievement.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

139
Table 17
Teacher Elaborations in Response to Interview Questions Four and Five
Teacher
Response to question four indicates
if teacher has an understanding of
the current evaluative process
Response to question five includes
statement that teacher evaluations
should be linked to student achievement
1 (resource) Yes Yes
2 (inclusion) Yes No
3 (resource) Yes Yes
4 (resource) No Yes
5 (resource) Yes Yes
6 (resource) Yes Yes
7 (resource) Yes No
8 (resource) Yes/No Yes
9 (inclusion) No Yes
10 (inclusion) Yes Yes
11 (resource) No Yes
12 (resource) Yes Yes

Observation notes. Five observation categories, based on the checklist of elements by
Merriam (2009, pp. 120-121) were transcribed from an observation protocol (Appendix D).
Transcriptions of notes for teacher eight and teacher eleven, along with other MPS teachers, are
presented below.
Physical structure/setting. Teachers eight and eleven assigned each of their students to
cooperative groups of four or six. During the observed language arts or math lessons, students
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

140
met with their teachers on rugs situated at the front and center of the classrooms. After direct-
instructions students returned to their seats to complete independent work, while teachers and
their aids facilitated the work. Teacher eight commented that it was important to keep her
students actively engaged and moving throughout the room at specific intervals to maintain
student interest and motivation.
Classroom activities. Teacher eight established a rewards contract with one student
identified with autism. Provisions allowed the student free access and movement around the
classroom without repercussion, in exchange for decreased disruptions and completed work.
During observations the student was shadowed by his one-on-one aid, who managed to get him
to complete tasks assigned to the rest of the students in the class. The difference was that this
particular student completed the tasks when he settled down to work and was ready. Often the
rest of his peers had moved on with the teacher to the next assignment.
Teacher eleven started her language arts lesson directing to the whole class. Students
moved on to reading, writing, and computer centers while she worked with two students
mainstreaming from Special Day class.
Conversations. Teacher eleven maintained a supportive and encouraging conversational
tone with two mainstreaming students while she assisted their reading fluency development. She
spoke to “Jamie” saying, “Jamie, let’s see if you’re on fire today! Good job, can you sound out
the next word? Wow, that was excellent, you’re on fire!”
Students and teachers. Teacher eight and teacher eleven carried the resource cluster
registers for their respective grade levels. Teacher eight reported fewer disruptions from a
student, who receives special education services through an IEP, since the beginning of the
school year. Incidences of profanity laced disruptions and off-task behaviors have decreased and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

141
comprehension levels and math skills have increased. Teacher eight attributed the student’s
improvements to a behavior contract, which permitted the student to work at his own pace;
although it appeared outwardly that he was off-task. Teacher eleven worked with several
students identified with special needs through IEPs. Both teachers engaged their students in
active learning that encouraged student loquacity.
Student-teacher interactions. Teacher eleven exhibited steadfast patience and expressed
genuine praise and encouragement to students mainstreamed into her classroom for language arts
lessons. She spent time with the students practicing vocabulary skills.
Teacher eight and teacher eleven were among three teachers who stated misgivings about
their understanding of how student achievement links to teacher evaluations. Both teachers
expressed concern related to their perceptions that evaluations and links to student achievement
are currently used improperly. Through observed practice, teacher eight promoted a behavior
contract with all her students, as was witnessed when two off-task students were asked to lower
their behavior card as a warning. She modified this system for the student identified with autism,
allowing him more leeway related to on-task and off-task expectations. Teacher eleven
permitted a noisy, but on-task classroom where students moved through language arts centers
while she worked with mainstreaming students.
Teacher dispositions and teacher evaluations. The following interview questions
indicate how teachers feel about the current evaluative process implemented in SCSD.
Qualifications emerged during most of the interviews, where teachers contrasted positive
sentiments about evaluations used within the context of their school site as conducted by the
current administrator, with negative sentiments about district enforced evaluations. These
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

142
responses are compared against classroom observation field notes. Collected data were coded
under the research question theme “Teacher Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations”.
Interview responses. Responses to interview questions one and two revealed individual
understandings of current evaluative measures and feelings associated with how the measures are
used within their school and district.
Responses to interview question one “Describe your understanding of current evaluative
measures.” included revelations that teachers felt the current evaluative process was
insurmountable for individual teachers, their administrator, or both.
Teacher one stated, “It seems like it could be a positive experience, except it’s extremely
lengthy and it’s not reasonable in terms of the amount of time that has to go into it.”
Teacher four elaborated the sentiment:
Well, I understand that the changes have been made to the [evaluation process] are far too
intense for the infrastructure to support. Where the [previous evaluative process] was just
a simple observation and then feedback from the administrator, my understanding of the
new evaluative measures is that they’re trying to incorporate all manner of things, such as
parent input, student input, testing data, and consists of written work, as well as observed
lessons, and then a feedback and revision process that involves the administrator, and that
it’s meant to be far-reaching.
Teacher six stated simply, “Right now, well intended, but not very realistic.”
Teacher eight recalled, “Well, my current understanding is that they’re changing it, that
that’s a more involved process, and we have to log things online. More self-reflection,
documented self-reflection, and that the principal has to do more observation as well.”
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

143
Teacher nine reiterated:
I think it’s really time consuming, labor intensive and, in a way, you are being measured
by the way your children are performing per se with assessments which I think should be
part of your assessment but it shouldn’t be all of it.
Teacher twelve answered with trepidation about her understanding:
To my understanding, current evaluative measures are based on principal observations in
the classroom, formal and informal and at some point we will be evaluated on our
student’s test scores. I don’t know the percentage of it; how much each one will be worth
in terms of the test scores versus in person observations.
More than half of teachers interviewed indicated concern over the amount of time
required, for both teachers and administrators, regarding evaluation processes. The process of
evaluating teachers by principals was described as “…more involved…overwhelming…too
much for the principal…”. Rice et al. (2012) found that “Teachers reported that their principals
and vice principals were ‘very overwhelmed’” by new evaluation processes (p. 910).
Interview question two, “How do you feel about current teacher evaluations and how they
are used in your school?” evoked responses where teachers attributed a climate of trust, lowered
anxiety, and collaboration toward building on individuals’ teaching strengths to their current
administrator.
Teacher one attributed high student achievement, and in turn high teacher value, to the
schools high API score:
I didn’t feel impacted by VAM because our school is such a high-performing school. It
doesn’t adversely affect us in a way that it would probably, teachers who are performing
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

144
at [low] performing schools in areas where children aren’t given as many opportunities to
excel outside of school. I haven’t felt really affected at all by the value-added.
Teacher two indicated that the evaluative process collectively is overwhelming, however:
I know how she [current administrator] sees them [teacher evaluations], how she intends
to use them as a beginning point of a conversation to talk with teachers about their
practice and how to do better and what their goals are… I don’t have any trepidation as
far as how she sees it being used. But I do feel the district is really unrealistic about what
they are expecting principals to do.
Teacher three replied in the same manner as teacher two:
In this school, I feel very good about them. I feel that our administrator uses our
evaluations appropriately. In that, they are used to inform her about our practice. She uses
it to help us improve our practice, I don’t feel they’re punitive and I feel that they are
very fair.
Teacher four provided perspective about how evaluations can be used negatively in other
schools. She referred to a colleague who teaches in another school whose administrator used low
evaluation marks to move the teacher out of her school: “… it was my first opportunity of seeing
the dark side of evaluations, because I felt at my current school site, even if the teacher did
receive a ‘needs’ [improvement score], they were supported in correcting the deficiencies in their
evaluation, and that it wasn’t like a threatening type situation.”
Teacher six likewise compared her negative experience with an administrator in another
school with how evaluations are implemented in MPS:
A good evaluation process should really nurture the strengths and give strategies for
strengthening the weaknesses. I think my first experiences with the district evaluation
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

145
process were not about nurturing my strengths. It was much more about, ‘Let me just find
something that I can say you did wrong; so I can be done’.
Teacher eight showed her appreciation for how the current administrator approaches
teacher weaknesses, or areas of need:
But I think the way evaluation is used here, I think it’s really effective. I was evaluated
last year with [the current administrator of MPS] and she did her observations and it was
very collegial and very, ‘How can we improve practice?’ as opposed to trying to catch me
doing something [wrong], which was I thought very helpful, it gave me a lot of ideas for
doing a better job.
Teacher ten reiterated sentiments expressed by her colleagues: “At our school, I think it
is a very professional process in terms of our site administrator.”
Teacher eleven emphasized the climate of reduced anxiety surrounding evaluations:
I think that since we have a principal who is people friendly and committed to the best
practices for the kids. I’m not worried about it because I know that whatever she and I
come up with as goals for me to work on, will be in the best interest of the kids. So, I’m
not worried about it.
Teacher twelve explained, “I like how my principal actually follows through, and comes
to visit and gives productive feedback.” Teacher twelve shared her trepidations about the future
of teacher evaluations when asked to speak freely outside the prompts of interview question:
I’d just be interested to see how they are taken into account; teachers who have students
with learning challenges in their classroom. But within the group of learning challenges,
there’s a huge spectrum. There’s a child who could have Asperger’s who presents as
someone who is high functioning but has social challenges. So the child who has an
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

146
intellectual disability, like Down’s Syndrome or a child who has emotional disturbances.
For the teachers that teach children who have more severe disabilities, those children
show less growth overtime and they are not going to perform well on the CST or on some
of the current models that are out; some of the current assessment models that are out
there today. So, I’d be interested to see how they would use evaluations. How those
teachers would be evaluated fairly.
Table 18 shows which teachers included concerns about time and the current evaluative
process along with their attributions of a positive climate surrounding evaluations within MPS to
the current administrator.

Table 18
Views About the Current Evaluative Process in General and Within MPS
Teacher
Responses to interview questions in general, and
particularly question one, indicate teacher’s view
that current evaluative process as insurmountable
Response to question two attributes trust, lowered
anxiety, and collaboration to how current
administrator approaches evaluative process
1 (resource) X
2 (inclusion) X X
3 (resource) X
4 (resource) X X
5 (resource) X
6 (resource) X X
7 (resource)
8 (resource) X X
9 (inclusion) X
10 (inclusion) X
11 (resource) X
12 (resource) X X
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

147
Observation notes. The four observation categories below are based on the checklist of
elements by Merriam (2009, pp. 120-121). Observation field notes were transcribed from an
observation protocol (Appendix D). Transcribed observations of all MPS teachers, particularly
one and teacher twelve follow.
Classroom activities. Teacher one organized students into groups of five and six and
rotated them through language arts reading, writing, art, and math centers. She had the
assistance of a parent volunteer. Teacher twelve led her students in a role-playing theater class
with the assistance of two classroom volunteers.
Students and teachers. Teacher one and teacher twelve carried the resource cluster
registers for their respective grade levels. Teacher twelve taught many special needs students.
Students in teacher one’s class were comprised of four students receiving Special Education
services, one student identified with emotional distress and gifted; the remaining students were
identified general ability. Several students in teacher twelve’s class were identified as “twice-
exceptional”; being identified gifted and needing Special Education services. Teacher one
maintained a strict, insistent demeanor, expecting students to work quietly and cooperatively in
their homogeneous groups. Students conducted themselves quietly and completed their work.
Teacher twelve maintained a similar level of expectation.
Student-teacher interactions. Teacher one held the same academic expectations for the
four students holding IEPs as she did the rest of her students. One particular student “John”
suffered a childhood disease as an infant and underwent corrective surgery and treatment. When
“John” protested that he could not complete his assignment, teacher one did not accept his
excuse. Teacher one stated her personal belief as to why she will not accept “No” and “I can’t”
from any student when it comes to expected work: “A teacher’s expectations affect students’
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

148
performances.” During the same observation she addressed another student exhibiting emotional
distress. “George”, a student, teacher one later revealed to have emotional problems, became
hysterical over being asked by the classroom volunteer to redo a math problem. Teacher one
found his hysteria and refusal to comply disrespectful and immediately stepped in. She
addressed the student face to face: “I’m going to have to get your behavior log and put some X’s
in it. Say ‘I’m sorry’ to Ms. Kathy!” George complied and the teacher had him back to work
immediately.
Subtle factors. Both teachers maintained high-level expectations for all students.
Teacher one and teacher twelve were among the majority of teachers who expressed sentiments
that the current evaluative system is overwhelming and not realistic. Both expressed positive
opinions about how current evaluative measures are used within MPS, but for different reasons.
Teacher one attributed the success of teacher evaluations as implemented within MPS to high-
level abilities of students attending a high performing school. Teacher twelve attributed positive
sentiments to how the current administrator fosters an environment of positive feedback in the
implementation of current evaluative measures. Both teachers conducted classroom lessons with
high expectations for all students, including mainstreaming students.
Data Summary Analysis for Research Question A
Research Question a, attempts to address teacher perceptions about the influence of the
evaluative process over classroom practices. It relates to the dispositions of teachers, towards
students with varying needs, addressed in research question one. In the following discussion
section, comparisons will be drawn between what teachers said in response to interview
questions and what they did during classroom observations. Specific focus remains on teachers’
dispositions related to: students presenting learning challenges, student achievement, and
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

149
teacher evaluations. Research question themes align as headings for data collected from
teachers’ responses to surveys and interviews, and notes collected during observations.
Teacher Dispositions and Students Presenting Learning Challenges
Mercieca (2013) described the process of becoming a teacher as “experimentation” with
students who are “becoming-students” (p. 50). The student-teacher dynamic, acknowledged as
an integral element of the learning process, is not an easily measured variable. Allen et al.
(2013) attributed this dynamic to the “value-added of classroom settings” (p. 91). The
implication is that teacher relationships with students impacts achievement. Within the present
heading (research question theme), common responses emerged, which will be analyzed.
Teachers expressed certainty regarding their practice with students presenting learning
challenges and uncertainty regarding the impact of quantitative evaluative efforts. A template
and checklist were used to record notes during classroom observations. Elements of Merriam’s
(2009) checklist were analyzed related to these observations.
Interview responses. Two teachers answered interview question ten with ambivalence,
and the remaining teachers answered with certainty (see Table 16). Five teachers answered
simply and pragmatically: “no”. Seven teachers, including the two who answered ambivalently,
affirmed their belief that being inclusion teachers affects their evaluations. Each teacher
qualified their “yes” statement referencing the same concerns regarding evaluative objectivity
that researchers have listed about VAM (Grossman et al., 2013; Hanusheck & Rivkin, 2010;
Marder, 2012).
When asked about the impact of evaluations upon their interactions with students
presenting learning challenges, nine teachers indicated they disregard the presence of evaluative
pressures upon their practice. It is worth noting that teacher three, teacher five, and teacher eight
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

150
were among the ne responses to question eleven, however these same teachers answered “yes” to
interview question three regarding evaluative measures’ influence over disposition and practice
with students in general (see Table 19). All ye responses to question three were qualified with
details of the negative impact evaluations have upon practice. Teacher eight described how her
instructional practices diverged from the norm during observations: “The real reality show is
when the camera’s not there. When the camera’s there, it’s a forced reality show.” Four teachers
claimed that evaluative measures influence their practice with students in general; eight
dismissed the influence. Three teachers claimed that evaluative measures influence their practice
with students presenting learning challenges; nine dismissed the influence.
Six teachers consistently responded “no” to interview questions three and eleven;
regarding the impact of evaluations upon practices with students in general, and students
presenting learning challenges.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

151
Table 19
Responses to Interview Questions Three and Eleven Compared
Teacher
3. Do evaluative measures influence
your disposition and practices towards
students?
11. Do current evaluative measures
influence your practice with students
presenting learning challenges?
1 (resource) No Yes
2 (inclusion) No No
3 (resource) Yes No
4 (resource) No No
5 (resource) Yes No
6 (resource) Yes/No Yes
7 (resource) No Yes
8 (resource) Yes No
9 (inclusion) No No
10 (inclusion) No No
11 (resource) No No
12 (resource) No No

Classroom observations. General education teachers collaborated with special
education teachers to promote and utilize inclusive classroom practices. “Mainstream thinking”
was restructured in an effort to accommodate students with a variety of learning needs
(Shaddock, Giorcelli, & Smith, 2007, p. 4). Observed MPS teachers practiced inclusive
measures and assisted mainstreaming students with diverse learning needs. Article 56000 Part
(c) of the California Education Code describes the “least restrictive environment” as a means of
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

152
educating students identified having special needs (CDE/Special Education Related Education
Code Sections, 2012, p. 87). The least restrictive environments observed were in resource
classrooms and classrooms where teachers practiced inclusion.
Teacher Dispositions and Student Achievement
Researchers have addressed the difficulty of measuring the impacts of student-teacher
interactions upon student achievement (Allen et al., 2013; Fryer, 2013). Within the present
research question theme, common responses emerged, which are analyzed below. Teachers’
responses to interview questions addressed student achievement scores and skepticism about
what these scores reveal. Analyses of classroom observations include elements of Merriam’s
(2009) checklist related to classroom observations.
Interview responses. Eight teachers indicated an understanding that student test scores
are linked to teacher evaluations in response to question four. Eleven teachers expressed
skepticism about linking student achievement to evaluations. The general sentiment supported
necessary teacher accountability linked to student achievement, yet expressed dismay over the
prospects of assigning numerical values to teachers based upon student performance on a test.
Classroom observations. McKenna, Yalvac, and Light (2009) promoted student
centered approaches to teaching and learning, as opposed to teacher centered approaches, as
effective and conducive to high-achievement (p. 19). The National Research Council (NRC,
2005) promoted communal learning environments where the learner, learner’s knowledge, and
assessment of knowledge remain central and overlapping (p. 13). Each lens focuses on equally
important aspects of effective learning environments. An inclusive community provides a
variety of approaches to teaching and learning where learners’ prior knowledge is acknowledged
while introducing what is to be learned and providing teacher and student feedback through
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

153
ongoing assessments (The National Research Council [NRC], 2005, pp. 14-20). These concepts
are more readily adopted by teachers who have certain dispositions amenable to adaptation, and
integration of the described critical changes.
Teacher Dispositions and Teacher Evaluations
Tuytens and Devos (2011) promoted “active leadership supervision” as an effort by
principals to supervise teachers through evaluative processes of providing feedback, “emotional
support”, and professional development (p. 893). This can have a positive impact on teacher
practices and subsequently student achievement. Khalifa (2011) contended that principals who
challenge teachers to promote equity in learning for all students impact the classroom as
“culturally-relevant” leaders (p. 722). Within the present research question theme, common
responses emerged to interview questions, and common practices as observed during classroom
observations; these are analyzed below. Teachers’ responses to interview questions revealed
their understandings of current evaluative measures. Classroom observation notes were analyzed
to correlate the impact of teacher evaluations upon classroom practices. Elements of Merriam’s
(2009) checklist were analyzed related to classroom observations.
Interview responses. Teachers’ understandings of current evaluative measures varied.
Teacher one, teacher seven, and teacher ten each stated uncertainty about their understanding of
current evaluative measures. The remaining MPS teachers stated their understanding of current
evaluative measures to include changes that involve linking student achievement scores to
teachers’ evaluations. Understandings included agreements that teacher accountability linked to
student achievement is necessary and important, but concern and skepticism were expressed
related to how bureaucracies institute such accountability. Flores (2012) correlated current
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

154
implementation of VAM with teachers’ negative associations with and skepticism toward
associated bureaucracies (p. 365).
Several interview respondents contrasted their current administrator and how she
implements evaluations against the perception of how the district implements and utilizes
evaluations. Nine MPS teachers associated positive feelings about how evaluations are used
within the school site. Eight of the responses attributed administrative approach to evaluations
as reasons for the positivity. Range, Scherz, Holt, and Young (2011) sited fear of merit ratings
for evaluations as a reason why teachers and their administrators do not candidly converse over
teacher performances (p. 247). However, this was not the case at MPS. Interview responses
indicated positive open communication/feedback between teachers and the administrator
regarding evaluation results. Teacher three summarized the general sentiment. She stated that
the current administrator uses evaluations “…to help us improve our practice…they’re not
punitive…they are very fair.” Tuytens and Devos (2011) correlated administrators’ conduct as a
leader in instruction, with teacher receptiveness during evaluative feedback (p. 897). Teacher ten
expressed her appreciation for how the MPS administrator emphasized “…what the educator
brought to the table and how they taught the types of lessons that they implemented…” Teacher
twelve reiterated “I like how my principal actually follows through, and comes to visit and gives
productive feedback.” The general sentiment promoted MPS administrator practices as
acknowledging individual strengths and working collaboratively to improve areas of need.
Runhaar, Sanders, and Yang (2010) found teachers to be more receptive to, and proactive with,
evaluative feedback if they perceived their administrator to be supportive and have affirming
dispositions about building areas of need (p. 1159).
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

155
Classroom observations. Rutledge, Harris, and Ingle (2010) found principals in high
performing schools to be more permissive of creative and enthusiastic teacher qualities over
cooperative and organized teacher qualities (p. 216). Each teacher observed exhibited
predilections for teacher directed learning and classroom control.
Research Question B
The purpose of Research Question B was to correlate qualitative findings from surveys,
interviews, and observations with current VAM scores. Quantitative data includes the evaluation
scores of interviewed and observed teachers. This information can be matched against what
teachers say and do. The triangulated data provided a profile of the dispositions held by teachers
who worked in inclusion classrooms with students who present learning challenges. Anticipated
outcomes encourage the integration of subjective and objective evaluations for the purpose of
improving teacher practice (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2009; Rockoff & Speroni, 2010). Evaluation
scores were obtained from public records (see Table 20).
The Value-Added Modeling scores rate teachers as “Least Effective”, “Less Effective”,
“Average”, “More Effective”, and “Most Effective” (Buddin, 2014). A number of one through
five was assigned to each score for the purpose of coding (one given to a “Least Effective” and
five given to a “Most Effective” rating). Public records accessed scores for nine out of twelve
teachers participating in the data collection. Averaged scores resulted in a rating of “Average”
effectiveness (3) overall. Museum Park School has maintained an API score above 900 for the
past five years; the most current API score for MPS is 919 (California Department of Education,
2013).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

156
Table 20
Teacher VAM Ratings
Teacher Language Arts Rating Math Rating Overall Rating
1 (resource) Most Effective (5) Most Effective (5) Most Effective (5)
2 (inclusion) Most Effective (5) Most Effective (5) Most Effective (5)
3 (resource) More Effective (4) Less Effective (2) Average (3)
4 (resource) Less Effective (2) Least Effective (1) Less Effective (1.5)
5 (resource) Average (3) Least Effective (1) Less Effective (2)
6 (resource) More Effective (4) Less Effective (2) Average (3)
7 (resource) More Effective (4) Average (3) Average (3.5)
8 (resource) Least Effective (1) Least Effective (1) Least Effective (1)
9 (inclusion) Average (3) Average (3) Average (3)
(Buddin, 2014)

Data Summary Analysis for Research Question B
Delpit (2012) described patience, willingness to understand students personally, and
differentiation of instruction as qualities of a teacher who effectively teaches students presenting
a wide variety of learning challenges (p. 76). Evidence of these attributes was observed through
all data collection instruments accept archived VAM scores. VAM scores provided sensational
and provocative perspectives on teacher effectiveness especially when made available through
news media publications. However, attributes described by Delpit (2012) and found among
MPS teachers, were overshadowed by the impact of publicly recorded VAM scores. Fryer
(2013) argued that observable teacher characteristics are not “strongly correlated” with VAM (p.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

157
374). Teachers’ perceptions about impacts of students presenting learning challenges and
student achievement upon their own evaluations, vary as illustrated in Table 21.

Table 21
Comparisons between Interview Question Responses and VAM Scores
Teacher
10. Do you perceive that
being an inclusive teacher
who works with students
presenting learning
challenges affects your
evaluations?
11. Do current
evaluative measures
influence your practice
with students presenting
learning challenges? Overall VAM Rating
1 (resource) Yes Yes Most Effective (5)
2 (inclusion) No No Most Effective (5)
3 (resource) Yes/No No Average (3)
4 (resource) No No Less Effective (1.5)
5 (resource) Yes No Less Effective (2)
6 (resource) Yes Yes Average (3)
7 (resource) Yes Yes Average (3.5)
8 (resource) Yes/No No Least Effective (1)
9 (inclusion) No No Average (3)
(Buddin, 2014)

Both teacher one and teacher two were classified “Most Effective” overall according to
VAM measures (Buddin, 2014). Teacher one taught the resource cluster for her grade level.
Teacher two utilized inclusion methods, but did not have a resource class. Both teachers’
answers to interview questions ten and eleven are opposing. Teacher one stated during the
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

158
interview that working with students presenting learning challenges as a resource teacher affects
her evaluations. She also stated that these measures influence her practices with these same
students. Teacher two stated that being an inclusion teacher working with students presenting
learning challenges does not affect her evaluations and that her practice is not affected.
Advanced student abilities were attributed to students’ high achievement during teacher one’s
and teacher two’s interviews.
Observations for both teacher one and two revealed structured lessons and exercise of
teacher control over the pacing of work and how students responded to the teacher or to peers.
Teacher one described herself as strict. Muñoz et al. (2013) correlated the control teachers have
over their classrooms with higher levels of student achievement gains (p. 227). Sayeski and
Brown (2011) addressed the challenges resource teachers face regarding classroom management.
Students who present learning challenges, and students with special needs require extra support
(Sayeski & Brown, 2011, p. 16). Both teachers have been teaching longer than the average of 17
years. Their ratings and years in teaching correlate with the effects, suggested by research, of the
benefits of being in an environment supportive of on-going teacher learning; this environment
counterbalanced a possible cause of lowered teacher effectiveness scores described by
researchers as: a leveling off effect of “older teachers” (Darling-Hammond, 2000, p. 7).
Teacher three, teacher six, teacher seven, and teacher nine rated “Average” overall
according to VAM; teacher nine is an inclusion teacher, the others listed are resource teachers.
Their answers to interview questions ten and eleven are not consistent among all four teachers.
Teacher three answered “yes” and “no” to interview question ten (this is discussed in the
following paragraph). Teacher three and teacher nine stated that being an inclusion teacher who
works with students presenting learning challenges did not affect their evaluations. These same
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

159
teachers stated that current evaluative measures did not influence their practice of working with
students presenting learning challenges. Teacher six and teacher seven answered “yes” to both
questions.
Teacher three (“Average”) and teacher eight (“Least Effective”), both resource teachers,
each stated “yes and no” to interview question ten. Both qualified that they do not feel
threatened by how evaluations are implemented by their current administrator. During pre and
post observation conferences she acknowledged the presence of students presenting learning
challenges in each classroom. They both clarified that their current administrator approaches
evaluations in a manner that makes them feel supported. Both teachers expressed distrust and
dismay about their perceptions that, as the district implements evaluations, it looks only at
quantitative data without consideration of the diversity of student needs and abilities within their
classrooms. The perception is that student’ test achievements and therefore teachers’ evaluations
are impacted by “unobservable” factors (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). Both teacher three and
teacher eight stated that their practices and dispositions towards students presenting learning
challenges, are not affected by current evaluative processes. Both teachers maintained active
classrooms where students were engaged in a level of learning that required peer conversations
and collaboration. Teacher three allowed students to move about the room and sit where they
preferred. Teacher eight allowed a student with special needs to work on tasks at his pace and
time; this student appeared to be off-task at certain times, but he also demonstrated knowledge of
the objectives and had been showing behavior improvements according to the teacher. Milner
and Tenore (2010) described the importance of culturally responsive classroom management.
Culturally responsive classroom management involves teachers knowing their students on
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

160
communal levels, understanding issues of equity and access to curriculum, promoting critical
thinking and providing “significant learning” opportunities in diverse settings (p. 599).
Teacher four and teacher five are resource teachers and rated “Less Effective” overall
according to VAM (Buddin, 2014). Teacher four claimed that being an inclusion teacher who
works with students presenting learning challenges does not affect her evaluations negatively
with her administrator; she expressed distrust of how the district may view, and possibly use, her
quantitative evaluation scores. Teacher five claimed that her evaluations are impacted by
students presenting learning challenges. Both answered that their practices with students
presenting learning challenges are not impacted by their evaluations. Teacher four’s observed
practice demonstrated the qualities listed by Delpit (2012). Teacher four stated during her
interview “I feel like patience is really what I bring to the table on a personal level.”
More than half of the teachers, whose VAM scores appear in Table 20 and Table 21,
stated that being inclusion or resource teachers who work with students presenting learning
challenges affects their evaluations negatively. However, more than half stated that this fact
does not impact their practice negatively. Marder (2012) described “limitations to computer
measures of teacher value” and the resulting technical errors that occur during VAM ratings (p.
161).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

161
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Media publications of teachers’ effectiveness scores have sensationalized the meaning of
teacher evaluations. Inclusion of student achievement on standardized assessments as part of
teacher evaluations has been emphasized over the importance of developing and observing
qualitative factors of “good teaching” (Grossman et al., 2013). Measures used to link student
achievement to teacher evaluations do not currently include qualifiers to offset possible negative
impacts of students presenting learning challenges.
Current efforts that emphasize measuring and examining teacher effectiveness through a
quantitative lens, without accounting for factors, for which teachers have no control, have been
viewed by educators with suspicion and apprehension. Grossman et al. (2013) reported the
inability of quantitative evaluation tools to measure certain aspects of good teaching such as
elevating student writing and critical thinking skills (p. 448). One might argue that evaluative
measures such as VAM rely upon students’ standardized assessment performances, which
emphasize testing skills utilized to answer multiple choice questions. Teachers interviewed and
observed in this study endorsed the practice of holding themselves accountable for student
learning. However, the data collected suggests that they feel that this accountability must
include qualifiers that account for students who present learning challenges to offset such
students having a negative impact on their teachers’ evaluations.
These same teachers spoke about the need for a climate of trust within the work
environment related to the evaluation process. This climate is affected by the classroom and
teachers’ interactions with students who present learning challenges. This research found that
when the pressures of a narrowly focused, quantitative evaluative system were offset by
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

162
qualifying factors, such as an understanding administrator, teachers were enthusiastic about
working with students who present learning challenges. Only then could they disregard
perceived or potential negative impacts upon such measures as VAM.
Data from the present research reveals that teachers felt that qualitative approaches to
evaluations would account for aspects of the teaching and learning experiences, which cannot be
easily measured and quantified. Dispositions of teachers who addressed the varying needs in
inclusion classrooms included strong loci of influence over those students who present learning
challenges. Teachers stated that they, as individual teachers, were responsible for, and should be
held accountable to, student achievement. However, current evaluative measures are narrow and
do not account for all achievement variables by students presenting learning challenges.
Therefore, teachers held high regard for the qualitative emphases utilized by an administrator
during evaluations and expressed distrust over district implementation and utilization of
quantitative evaluations. This was evidenced by predilections to work in a collaborative and safe
environment encompassing qualitative evaluations.
Programs like RTTT ignite a public perception of quantitative evaluations as a quick fix.
The monetary rewards cause districts to strive for something experienced educators view as
detrimental to diverse student needs. Is a humanist approach one that would be more effective in
the long run, if districts could find a way to standardize the support for teachers and students that
this study addresses? Teachers participating in this research perceived their experiences with
qualitative aspects of their evaluation process to include feedback about, and reflection upon,
improving their own classroom practices. Teachers’ perceptions of district implemented
evaluations, which include weighted quantitative factors, viewed the process as insurmountable
and rife with anxiety.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

163
Trust and lowered anxiety were attributed to the collaborations between teachers and
their administrator regarding qualitative efforts toward improving classroom practices. This
raises implications toward relevance and the evaluative weight given to quantitative VAM
scores. The variance in individual VAM scores among the participating teachers, and the fact
that the API ranking at the research site has remained above 900 and climbing over the past
several years, are incongruous. Efforts to match trends between teachers’ dispositions and their
VAM scores remained inconclusive. The research showed teachers shared common dispositions
and observed practices. However, documented review of their VAM scores revealed a wide
range of effectiveness rates. This suggests that VAM may measure student achievement abilities
more than it measures teacher input and practice; further research is required (Fryer, 2013;
Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012; Marder, 2013).
Teachers in this study accepted the onus of improving student achievement. The
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2013) prescribed as effective teaching the inherent
accountability that teachers “…take responsibility for student academic learning outcomes” (p.
A-15). Teachers viewed themselves as having strong loci of control and influence over students
presenting learning challenges and their achievement (Rueda, 2011). This implies that teachers’
instructional practices are driven by a sense of trust, equity and student-centeredness;
dispositions regarded as effective teaching (Delpit, 2012). This study showed teachers have an
inherent professional role they uphold regardless of how they rate with arbitrary measures such
as VAM.
Teachers’ rejected research claims that VAM accounts for student challenges such as
socioeconomic factors; which despair student achievements on standardized assessments
(McCaffrey et al., 2004 & Lockwood, 2007). Teachers stated their disregard for VAM as due to
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

164
the ways in which effectiveness ratings have been utilized in the media and how the district
intends to weight quantitative elements in their evaluations. Of particular note, one teacher
described a period each year, prior to standardized testing, where she finds herself struggling not
to succumb to pressures and test-prepare her students. She qualified this internal struggle stating
her appreciation for students who present learning challenges, and how they make her a better
teacher. Several teachers expressed this same affinity for working with students who present
learning challenges. Teachers indicated, through descriptions of differentiated practices and
knowledge of meeting the needs of a range of diverse learners, a student-centered approach to
teaching and learning.
Although pressures from the quantitative lens of evaluative processes are real and ever-
present, teachers struggled to do what they perceived to be best for their students. Evaluative
processes affect classroom practices positively and negatively. Teachers regarded qualitative
evaluations to promote growth and improved practices. Concerns noted were issues related to
students presenting learning challenges; these issues have not been factored into any evaluative
process to the point of offsetting their negative impacts upon teacher evaluations (Hanushek &
Rivkin, 2012). Accounting for and qualifying these issues is imperative and counter-balances
the sensationalism equated with VAM (Fryer, 2013; Grossman et al., 2013; Hanushek & Rivkin,
2012; & Marder, 2013).
Classroom observations can be used to qualify and provide findings related to the broad
diversity of students’ academic and social abilities; particularly among inclusion and resource
teachers. Teachers who collectively institute evidence-based practices described by researchers
effectively implement the following: (a) off-task behavior addressed immediately, and usually
through proximal control; (b) students actively engaged in hands-on lessons; (c) teacher-initiated
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

165
positive interactions with students, (d) meet the needs of broad ranges of students with varying
academic and social needs; (e) describe deep understandings of those varying needs; and (f)
demonstrate receptiveness and institution of inclusionary practices (Alter et al., 2013, p. 65;
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013; Jordan et al. 2010; & McGhie-Richmond et al.,
2013). Teachers in this present study demonstrated strong preferences to initiate positive
student-teacher interactions, a hallmark of student-centered approaches to instruction.
Teachers who demonstrated effective classroom management notably exercised teacher-
control. Teacher control was demonstrated through tightly paced lessons, well planned
transitions between lessons, and influence over how students verbally responded to questions.
Although common practices were observed throughout twelve classrooms, a range of VAM
scores existed among teachers.
Access to nine out of twelve MPS teachers’ VAM scores revealed a range of
effectiveness ascriptions ranging from “Most Effective” to “Least Effective” (Buddin, 2014).
These ratings resulted in “Average” effectiveness overall. Researchers describe VAM as valid at
linking student achievement to teacher effectiveness in general education settings, yet unable to
measure critical thinking, containing flaws, not ready to be implemented full scale, and needing
to be considered as one component among a number of factors in teacher evaluations (Grossman
et al., 2013; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Hill et al., 2010; & Marder, 2012). When considering
VAM scores of practicing teachers, it is important to note that inclusion teachers have fewer
students presenting learning challenges than did their resource counterparts (see Tables 20 & 21).
Implications
Data findings and analyses yield implications regarding the future of evaluative
processes. Districts would benefit from evaluative revisions that emphasize qualitative factors
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

166
which outweigh narrowly defined quantifiable measures of student performance upon
standardized assessments and teacher evaluations. The emphasis centers on establishing a
community of trust among all educative participants. Suggested profiles for administrative
efforts within the evaluative process, along with dispositions and practices of inclusion teachers
follows. Evaluative processes that are collaborative and involve peer input are deemed more
meaningful. The nature of teaching and learning is subjective and qualitative; it is a soft science
(Mayer, 2011, vii). Consideration of the nature of teaching and learning requires emphasis on
qualitative factors, of both good teaching and students who present learning challenges; both
difficult to measure through numerical ascription.
Due to the qualitative approach to evaluations described by teachers in this present study,
current practices suggest a profile of inclusive teacher dispositions; described as horizontal
leadership between teachers and their administrator. Dispositions and practices of teachers who
willingly work with students presenting learning challenges counter the negative associations
found by researchers of many in the teaching profession (Jordan et al., 2010; & Ko & Boswell,
2013). This requires a disposition that castigates ambivalence toward inclusionary practices.
Findings consistently supported teachers’ affinities toward, and willingness to work with,
students who present learning challenges when the evaluative environment was perceived to be
safe, supportive, and collaborative. Teachers and administrators within this environment
acknowledged and addressed factors associated with students who present learning challenges
and their achievement. These associative factors, considered and acknowledged by all
participants, included understanding the academic and social abilities of students who present
learning challenges and potential negative impacts upon their achievement. Understanding that
the needs and achievements of students presenting learning challenges transcended standardized
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

167
test achievement scores allowed teachers to assume a disposition of “doing what is right” for
their students. Teachers describe teaching as a process of doing what is right for their students,
regardless of pressures to increase teacher effectiveness by elevating student test achievement.
Findings in this study call for collaborative efforts between teachers and their
administrators. Teachers deemed evaluations more meaningful when they worked alongside
their administrator in an effort to reflect upon and improve their practices. Findings by Rutledge
et al. (2010) support administrators’ efforts to support creativity and enthusiasm among teachers;
a general approach sited by participating teachers described evaluations as “a starting point” to
build from individual strengths toward improving areas of need. Research supports the integral
and positive relationships and exchanges between administrators and teachers as necessary
during evaluative processes (Higgins et al., 2012; Khalifa, 2011; Liu & Zhao, 2013; Range et al.,
2011; Rice et al., & Tuytens & Devos, 2011). Teachers feel safe when they feel supported by
their administrator and know she/he is willing to consider and look at qualitative effectiveness
factors, which cannot be easily measured quantitatively. This again speaks to the needed
environment of trust. This ultimately affects the classroom environment and positively affects
students presenting learning challenges.
Current research and generalized teacher perceptions regarding evaluative processes such
as VAM, call for more inclusive and collaborative protocols for evaluative measures. The
perception of current evaluative processes as rigid and detrimental must be addressed. Teachers
have described current evaluative systems as unmanageable for both teachers and administrators.
Solutions offered by many researchers promote peer evaluations between experienced and
inexperienced teachers. Mangin and Stoelinga (2010) attributed increased student achievement
and affected teacher value resulting from teacher-leader efforts. Teacher leaders’ use their
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

168
content knowledge and skills along with collaborative efforts to effect grade-level and school-
wide performance among colleagues (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010, p. 52).
Teacher leadership has implications for the future of teacher evaluations. Teacher leaders
who function as researchers, scholars, mentors, and evaluators influence standards, regulations,
benchmark assessments, and teacher performance assessments (Martin & Coleman, 2011, p. 7).
Research supports the effectiveness of peer evaluations as part of cutting edge changes in the
field of education. Roby (2011) emphasized the benefits of collaboration among teachers in an
effort to promote student achievement (p. 782). Sullivan (2012) described as effective a peer
review evaluative process that involves collaboration among teachers, peers, and administrators
in an effort to promote effective practices. One of the purposes of the peer program “…is to
identify underperforming teachers who need assistance and then to provide that assistance”
(Sullivan, 2012, p. 150).
Teachers in this study indicated their understanding that current evaluative processes
need to be more reflective. If the burden of executing observations necessary for the current
process were extended to peers through teacher-leadership opportunities (as described above),
then the feedback and reflective process would also be extended among peers. Runhaar et al.
(2010) found teachers more able to cope with difficulties associated with improving student
achievement and evaluative scores, if reflection included interaction with and feedback from
administrators and peers (p. 1159).
As previously stated, education is a soft science (Mayer, 2011, vii). Interactions between
students (particularly students presenting learning challenging) and their teachers, and between
teachers and their administrators, involves trust, vulnerability and intimacy. The qualitative
nature of this present research reveals the nature of teaching as subjective and qualitative. The
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

169
“human capital” in teaching cannot be ignored nor easily measured quantitatively (Fryer, 2013).
Researchers have grappled with objectively measuring a teacher’s value quantitatively; concerns
relate to validity and accuracy of evaluative measures such as VAM (Hill et al., 2010).
Researchers have concluded that VAM should be only one small component of measuring a
teacher’s value and effectiveness (Grossman et al., 2013; & Marder, 2012).
Anxieties associated with linking student achievement to teacher effectiveness can be
offset by consideration of student related qualitative factors in evaluations; effectively
diminishing the weight of quantitative effectiveness scores. These factors include
acknowledging what “good teaching” looks like and qualifying how students who present
learning challenges impact their achievement (Delpit, 2013; Grossman et al., 2013; & Hanushek
& Rivkin, 2010).
Teachers’ understandings of current evaluation measures, and their perceptions of how
their VAM ratings are affected by their status as inclusion/resource teachers, varied and were not
consistent across interview responses or individual VAM ratings (see Table 20). Districts would
be well advised to clarify to teachers how factors, such as the impact of students presenting
learning challenges upon their own achievement and upon teachers’ evaluations, would be
considered, accounted, and weighted in the evaluative process. Teacher distrust of quantitative
evaluation measures is not assuaged by research that claims VAM’s ability to mitigate
extenuating circumstances such as socio-economic status; students who present learning
challenges (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Lockwood et al., 2007; & McCaffrey et al., 2004). As
practitioners teachers understand, perceive, and describe otherwise.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

170
Limitations
Data collection was limited to one school site and twelve teachers within a high-
performing urban school. Researchers have stated that context specific responses and practices
may not generalize to other settings or may work in other settings differently (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriem, 2010; & Rueda, 2011). Interviews and observations were limited each to one hour per
participant. The researcher reports bias related to teacher evaluations as noteworthy. The
researcher is a practicing elementary teacher who works with students presenting learning
challenges, and participates in the current evaluative processes described. The researcher’s prior
experience and knowledge also served as instrumental to data collection in qualitative research
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 45). Other limitations that may apply relate to survey and interview
responses as they hinged upon teachers’ self-report. Observations and archived VAM scores
served to counterbalance such limitations.
Areas for Future Research
The following recommendations relate to limitations described for this study:
• It is recommended that similar research be conducted on the dispositions of inclusion
teachers in under-performing schools, as indicated by low API scores and unmet
AYP.
• Wide scale research could be conducted by grouping teachers according to VAM
scores; the purpose would be to compare survey, interview, and observation
responses to effectiveness scores with the intent of finding cohesion or disparity in
practices.
• Survey, interview, and observation data could be collected from multiple schools for
the purpose of comparing data.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

171
• Survey, interview, and observation data could be collected involving administrators
as respondents.
• Survey, interview, and observation data could be collected involving support
personnel in classrooms (aids, volunteers, specialists).
• Survey, interview, and observation data could be collected involving students;
particularly students who present learning challenges.
• Survey, interview, and observation data could be collected involving parents of
students.
Conclusion
Teachers who participated in this research unanimously supported the concept of teacher
accountability; this included quantitative measures. However, district and media influence over
the way student achievement has been linked to teacher evaluations has led to distrust of and
disregard for the quantitative links and their weight. The following conclusions were drawn
from the analyzed data:
1. Teachers who ascribe themselves a strong locus of influence with students presenting
learning challenges, feel they also have influence over student achievement and
teacher evaluations (Rueda, 2011). This sense of influence was garnered within an
evaluative environment of trust and upon a sense of building from teaching strengths
and improving classroom practices. Teachers know what good teaching is and what it
looks like (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
2. Teachers elaborated extensively regarding their understanding of current evaluative
processes, particularly interview question two “How do you feel about current teacher
evaluations and how they are used in your school?” Teachers expressed the need for
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

172
accountability; linking student achievement to teacher effectiveness. Teachers
eschewed current media-led, and perceivably district-enforced, efforts to ascribe
individual teacher values to a numerical sign-post of effectiveness (Flores 2012;
Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; & Marder, 2012). Teachers want to be held accountable
and want to improve individual practices; yet they want qualifiers that acknowledge
difficulties regarding students presenting learning challenges and impacts upon
student achievement and teacher evaluations. They also want acknowledged
achievements that are difficult to measure quantifiably.
3. Inclusion and resource classrooms are comprised of students presenting a broad range
of social and academic abilities and needs. Teachers who practice inclusionary
teaching methods create the following learning environments: (a) whole-class direct
instruction, small group cooperative learning (heterogeneous and homogenous), and
one-on-one student-teacher interactions; (b) active learning; (c) use of informal and
formal assessment data to drive instruction and individual plans (Perrault &
Levesque, 2012); (d) authentic connections made between teachers and students
involving genuine concern over social and academic wellbeing (Ko & Boswell, 2013;
Mercieca, 2012; & Spilt et al., 2011); (e) opportunities to work with students
presenting learning challenges (Maynard et al., 2009); and (f) subtle factors such as
strategic seating and proximal control of students presenting learning challenges
(Mundschenk et al., 2011).
4. Administrators who downplay importance of VAM scores help create an inclusive
environment where teachers feel safe about the purpose and intent of their
evaluations, and concurrently expect to be held accountable for improvements
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

173
(Tuytens & Devos, 2011). This impacted teachers’ described loci of control and
inclusionary practice preferences.
Teachers, who dispose themselves to exhibit inclusionary and differentiated practices,
know what good teaching is, and affirm their accountability to students who present learning
challenges and their achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Delpit, 2012). These dispositions
are garnered in a climate of trust established in the work place surrounding teacher evaluations.
The evaluative process is perceived to influence practice positively when teachers associate
evaluations with collaborative and safe in-house experiences; to the extent that teachers
collaborate, reflect upon, and build from their strengths to improve practices. Evaluative
measures such as VAM, perceived to distract from good teaching, influence focus upon test-
preparation, and do not show a comprehensive picture of effective teaching; as related to
students presenting learning challenges and the necessary accommodations not currently
accounted for or acknowledged. These quantitative evaluative measures also do not correlate
with teachers’ understandings of “good teaching” (Delpit, 2012). This small sampling raises
questions about the validity of evaluating student achievement and linking it to teacher
evaluations, without the consideration of student ability. Effectiveness scores of participants
within this present study ranged from “Most Effective” to “Least Effective” with a mean of
“Average” (Buddin, 2014). Teacher effectiveness scores as measured through such instruments
as VAM have been described by research as unready for full implementation and to be utilized
with caution and brevity (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012; & Marder, 2013).

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

174
References
Alber-Morgan, S.R., Ramp, E.M., Anderson, L.L., & Martin, C.M. (2007). Effects of repeated
readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension
of middle school students with behavior problems. The Journal of Special Education,
41(1), 17-30. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410010201
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system—secondary. School
Psychology Review 42(1), 76-98.
Alter, P., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teacher’s perceptions of students’ challenging
behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education and Treatment of Children
36(4), 51-69. doi: 10.1353/etc.2013.0040
Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Yough, M. S., & Gimbert, B. G. (2010). Value-added
models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational
Psychologist 45(2), 123-137. doi: 10.1080/00461521003703045
Beachum, F. D., Dentith, A. M., McCray, C. R., & Boyle, T. M. (2008). Havens of hope or the
killing fields the paradox of leadership, pedagogy, and relationships in an urban middle
school. Urban Education 43(2), 189-215. doi: 10.1177/0042085907312329
Berry, R. A. W. (2008). Novice teachers’ conceptions of fairness in inclusive classrooms.
Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 1149-1159. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.012
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education an introduction to
theory and methods. United States: Allyn and Bacon.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

175
Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added
models. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Services.
Buddin, R. (2014). Los Angeles teacher ratings. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://projects.latimes.com/value-added/
Byrnes, M. A. (2008). Educators’ interpretations of ambiguous accommodations. Remedial and
Special Education 29(5), 306-. doi: 10.1177/0741932507313017
California Department of Education (2012). California basic educational data system (CBEDS)
educational demographics office. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/dr/teacheth.asp
California Department of Education. (2013). Certificated staff by ethnicity for 2011-12 # of staff
by district by ethnicity. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Staff/StaffByEth.aspx?cSelect=1964733--
LOS%20ANGELES%20UNIFIED&cYear=2011-
12&cChoice=DstTeach&cType=T&cGender=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Paif&myTime
Frame=S
California Department of Education (2013). English learner students by language by grade.
Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpringData/StudentsByLanguage.aspx?Level=District&Th
eYear=2011-
12&SubGroup=All&ShortYear=1112&GenderGroup=B&CDSCode=19647330000000&
RecordType=FEP
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

176
California Department of Education (2013). Enrollment by grade for 2012-13 district
enrollment by grade. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrGrd&cYear=
2012-13&cSelect=1964733--
Los+Angeles+Unified&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFra
me=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B
California Department of Education (2013). School report-api growth and targets met 2012
growth academic performance index (API). Retrieved from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2012/2012GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=19647336017453
California Department of Education. (2013). Special education enrollment by age and
disability. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd3.asp?DistType=&cSelect=1964733--
LOS+ANGELES+UNIFIED&cChoice=SpecEd3&DistType=S&cYear=2011-
12&cLevel=District&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle
=December
CDE Special Education Related Education Code Sections, California Education Code Part 30
Special Education Programs, Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1 Intent (March,
2012).
Christenson, S. L., Decker, D. M., Triezenberg, H. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Reschly, A. (2007).
Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities.
Educational Policy 21(4), 662-690. doi: 10.1177/0895904806289209
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

177
Cline, Z., & Necochea J. (2008). Teacher dispositions for effective education in the
borderlands. The Educational Forum, 70(3), 268-282. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/1080/00131720608984902
Cochran-Smith, M., Friedman, A., Barnatt, J., & Pine (2009). Inquiry on inquiry: Practitioner
research and student learning. Action in Teacher Education 31(2), 17-33.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009).
Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American
Journal of Education 115(3), 347-377. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/10.1086/597493
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2013). CalTPA California teaching performance
assessment candidate handbook. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Los Angles: SAGE Publications
Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and teacher self-efficacy and the
connections to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(1), 65-98.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA2716
64326&v=2.1&u=usocal_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A
meta-analysis. American Educational Research Association 77(1), 113-143. doi:
10.3102/003465430298563
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

178
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, California: SAGE.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state
policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1), 1-44. Retrieved from
https://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No child left behind and high school reform. Harvard
Educational Review 76(4), 642-667, 725. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/212299060
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334. doi:
10.3102/0013189X07308253
de Boer, A., Timmerman, M., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2012). The psychometric evaluation
of a questionnaire to measure attitudes towards inclusive education. European Journal of
Psychological Education 27, 573-589. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0096-z
Delpit, L. (2012). “Multiplication is for white people” raising expectations for other people’s
children. United States of America: The New Press
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Rueger, S. Y., Brown, S. E., & Summers, K. H. (2009). The
role of youth’s ratings of the importance of socially supportive behaviors in the
relationship between social support and self-concept. J Youth Adolescence, 38, 13-28.
doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9258-3
De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2011). Accounting for exogenous influences in performance
evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review 30(4), 641-653. doi:
10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.002
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

179
Doran, H. C., & Lockwood, J. R. (2006). Fitting value-added models in r. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics 31(2), 205-230. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3701365 .
Downey, J. A. (2008). Recommendations for fostering resilience in the classroom. Preventing
School Failure 53(1), 56-64. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/228519645
Ed-Data (2013, District). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s k-12
schools. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataC
lassic/profile.asp?Tab=1&level=06&reportnumber=16
Ed-Data (2013, School). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s k-12
schools. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataC
lassic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=07&ReportNumber=16&County=19&fyr=1112&District
=64733&School=6017453
Filter, K.J., & Horner, R.H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem
behavior. Education and Treatment of Children 32(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0043
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys a step-by-step guide. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Fink, J. (2004). Conclusions on inclusion. The Clearing House 77(6), 272-274. Retrieved from
ProQuest
Flores, M. A. (2012). The implementation of a new policy on teacher appraisal in Portugal:
How do teachers experience it at school? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability 24(4), 351-368. doi: 10.1007/s11092-012-9154-7
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

180
Fryer, R. G. (2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York
City public schools. Journal of Labor Economics 31(3), 373-407. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667757
Fuhrman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In S. H. Fuhrman, & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education (pp. 3-14). New York, New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gates, J. (2010). Children with gifts and talents: Looking beyond traditional labels. Roeper
Review 32(3), 200-206. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.485308
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers an introduction. Boston: Pearson.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-nect purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In R. Livsey, P. Cappello & J. Preimesberger (Eds.), Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms. (pp. 57-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Goldstein, R. A. (2011). Imaging the frame: Media representations of teachers, their unions,
NCLB, and education reform. Educational Policy 25(4), 543-576. doi:
10.1177/089504810361720
Gordon, D. M., Iwamoto, D. K., Ward, N., Potts, R., & Boyd, E. (2009). Mentoring urban black
middle school male students: Implications for academic achievement. The Journal of
Negro Education 78(3), 277-289. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25608746
Griffin, C. C., League, M. B., Griffin, V. L., & Bae, J. (2013). Discourse practices in inclusive
elementary mathematics classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly 36(9), 9-20. doi:
10.1177/0731948712465188
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

181
Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: The
relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English
language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education 119(3),
445-470. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669901
Haddix, M. (2010). Black boys can write: Challenging dominant framings of African American
adolescent males in literacy research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4),
341-343. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30250075
Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in
America. American Sociological Association 85(3), 259-286. doi:
10.1177/0038040711431587
Hallinan, M. T. (2008). Teachers influences on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of
Education 81(3), 271-283. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/20452737
Hampel, P., Meier, M., & Kummel, U. (2008). School-based stress management training for
adolescents: Longitudinal results from an experimental study. J Youth Adolescence
37(8), 1009-1024. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9204-4
Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of
Education Review 30(3), 466-479. Retrieved from University of Southern California
USC LIBRARIES Reserves: https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of
teacher quality. The American Economic Review 100(2), 267-271. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27805002
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

182
Harris, D. M. (2011). Value-added measures and the future of educational accountability.
Science 333, 826-827. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Harris, D. M. (2012). Varying teacher expectations and standards: Curriculum differentiation
in the age of standards-based reform. Education and Urban Society 44(2), 128-150. doi:
10.1177/0013124511431568
Hatt, B. (2011). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal 20(10), 1-23. doi: 10.3102/0002831211415661
Henry, G. T., Kershaw, D. C., Zulli, R. A., & Smith, A. A. (2012). Incorporating teacher
effectiveness into teacher preparation program evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education
63(5), 335-355. doi: 10.1177/0022487112454437
Higgins, M., Ishimaru, A., Holcombe, R., & Fowler, A. (2012). Examining organizational
learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership
that reinforces learning. Journal of Educational Change 13, 67-94. doi:
10.1007/s10833-011-9167-9
Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2010). A validity argument approach to evaluating
teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal 48(3), 794-831.
doi: 10.3102/0002831210387916
Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Education Leadership 63(6), 48-
52. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Hughes, S. A., & North, C. E. (2011). Beyond popular cultural and structural arguments:
Imagining a compass to guide burgeoning urban achievement gap scholars. Education
and Urban Society, 44(3), 274-293. doi: 10.1177/0013124510396363
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

183
Jacob, B. A., Walsh, E. (2011). What’s in a rating? Economics of Education Review 30, 438-
448. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.009
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(4), 535-542. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The supporting effective teaching
(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers’ beliefs about
disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education
26(2), 259-266. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012).
Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos
predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal
49(3), 568-589. doi: 10.3102/0002831212437853
Khalifa, M. A. (2011). Teacher expectations and principal behavior: Responding to teacher
acquiescence. Urban Review 43(5), 702-727. doi: 10.1007/s11256-011-0176-z
Kim, M., & Schallert, D. L. (2011). Building caring realtionships between a teacher and
students in a teacher preparation program word-by-word, moment-by-moment. Teaching
and Teacher Education 27, 1059-1067. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.002
Ko, B., & Boswell, B. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, teaching practices, and learning
opportunities for inclusion. The Physical Educator 70(3), 223-242. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Koppich, J. & Rigby, J. (2009) Alternative teacher compensation: A primer. PACE. Retrieved
from http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/WP.09-2.pdf
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

184
Laprairie, K., Johnson, D. D., Rice, M., Adams, P., & Higgins, B. (2010). The top ten things
new high school teachers need to know about servicing students with special needs.
American Secondary Education 38(2), 23-31. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Lee, B., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2013). Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy for
teaching and pedagogical conceptual change in a drama-based professional development
program. Teaching and Teacher Education 30, 84-98. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.usc.edu/science/article/pii/S0742051X12001564
Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from
cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Ecucational Research
78(3), 608-644. doi: 10.3102/0034654308324427
Lee, S. M., & Kushner, J. (2008). Single-parent families: The role of parent’s and child’s
gender on academic achievement. Gender and Education 20(6), 607-621. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250802415132
Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B., Le, V., & Martinez, J. F.
(2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics
achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement 44(1), 47-67. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00026.x
Looney, J. (2011). Developing high-quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement.
European Journal of Education, 46(4). doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.1492.x
Loughran, J. (2007). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching
and learning about teaching. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

185
Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2010). The future of instructional teacher leader roles. The
Educational Forum, 74(1), 49-62. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220660508?accountid=35812
Marder, M. (2012). Measuring teacher quality with value-added modeling. Kappa Delta Pi
Record 48(), 156-161. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2012.733929
Martin, K., & Coleman, P. (2011). Licensing teacher leaders: the kansas model. Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 77(3), 6-9. Retrieved from https://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Matula, J.J. (2011). Embedding due process measures throughout the evaluation of teachers.
NASSP Bulletin 95(2), 99-121. doi: 10.1177/0192636511409925
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design an interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson
Maynard, D-M. B., & Welch, P. L. (2009). Coping strategies of Caribbean “problem students”.
International Journal for the Advancement of Counciling 31(1), 17-31. doi:
10.1007/s10447-008-9065-x
McAlister, A. (2009). Teaching the millennial generation. The American Music Teacher 59(1),
13-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/217498636
McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D. M., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2004) Evaluating value
added models for teacher accountability (Report No. 9050). Santa Monica, California:
Rand Corporation
McCray, E. D., & McHatton, P. A. (2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom”:
Understanding pre-service general educators’ preceptions about inclusion. Teacher
Education Quarterly 38(4), 135. Retrieved from http://www.caddogap.com
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

186
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher
perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education 36(1), 195-239.
McHugh, Horner, Colditz, & Wallace (2013). Bridges and barriers: Adolescent perceptions of
student-teacher relationships. Urban Education 48(1), 9-43. doi:
10.1177/0042085912451585
McKenna, A. F., Yalvac, B., & Light, G. J. (2009). The role of collaborative reflection on
shaping engineering faculty teaching approaches. Journal of Engineering Education
98(1), 17-26. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01002.x
Mercieca, D. (2012). Becoming-teachers: Desiring students. Educational Philosophy and
Theory 44(S1), 43-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00787.x
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Milner IV, H. R., & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms.
Urban Education 45(5), 560-603. doi: 10.1177/0042085910377290
Mundschenk, N. A., Miner, C. A., & Nastally, B. L. (2011). Effective classroom management:
An air traffic control analogy. Intervention in School and Clinic 47(2), 98-103. doi:
10.1177/1053451211414190
Muñoz, M. A., Scoskie, J. R., & French, D. L. (2013). Investigating the “black box” of effective
teaching: The relationship between teachers’ perception and student achievement in a
large urban district. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25(3), 205-
230. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9167-9
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

187
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Digest of education statistics: Table 51 number
and percentage of children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, part
b, by age group and state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1990–91 through 2010–11.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_051.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Schools and staffing survey (SASS). Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_029_t12n.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Digest of education statistics: Table 47
Number and percentage of public school students participating in programs for English
language learners, by state: Selected years, 2002-03 through 2010-11. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_047.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Digest of education statistics: Table 44.
Enrollment and percentage distribution of enrollment in public elementary and
secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall
2021. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_044.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Search for public schools. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=hancock+pa
rk&SchoolType=1&SchoolType=2&SchoolType=3&SchoolType=4&SpecificSchlTypes
=all&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1&ID=062271003067
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical
Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010). Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective
teachers. Retrieved from University of Southern California USC LIBRARIES Reserves:
https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

188
The National Research Council (2005). How students learn history, mathematics, and science in
the classroom. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children 35(3), 477-
490. doi: 10.1353/etc.2012.0020
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Developing elementary teachers’ understanding of the discourse
structure of inquiry-based science classrooms. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education 8(2), 247-269. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9172-0
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a
dual-launguage “strand” program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94-114.
doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01069.x
Parcel, T. L., Campbell, L. A., & Zhong, W. (2012). Children’s behavior problems in the
United States and Great Britain. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 53(2), 165-182.
doi: 10.1177/0022146512436742
Perrault, A. M., & Levesque, A. M. (2012). Caring for all students. Knowledge Quest 40(5),
16-. Retrieved from
Peske, H.G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: how poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality. Education Trust: Thinking K-16, 8(1), 3-33. Retrieved
from http://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Polikoff, M.S. (2012). Instructional alignment under no child left behind. American Journal of
Education 118(3), 341-368. doi: 10.1086/664773
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

189
Preece, J. (2008). Education for inclusion. Convergence 39(2-3), 147-165. Retrieved from
USC Libraries
http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.fvf%5B%5D=&s.cmd%5B%5D=&utf8
=%E2%9C%93&s.q=education+for+inclusion
Range, B. G., Scherz, S., Holt, C. R., & Young, S. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: The
Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 23(3),
243-265. doi: 10.1007/s11092-011-9123-5
Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 25,
34-41. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.003
Rice, J. K., Malen, B., Baumann, P., Chen, E., Dougherty, A., Hyde, L., Jackson, C., Jacobson,
R., & McKithen, C. (2012). The persistent problems and confounding challenges of
educator incentives: The case of TIF in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Educational
Policy 26(6), 892-933. doi: 10.1177/0895904812465708
Roby, D. E. (2011). Teacher leaders impacting school culture. Education, 131(4), 782-790.
Retrieved from https://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Rockoff, J.E., & Speroni, C. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher
effectiveness. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 100(2), 261-266.
Retrieved from http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/134.100.2.261
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs 9(), 188-198. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-
3802.2009.01135.x
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

190
Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback
asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational
leadership. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 1154-1161. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.011
Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the
new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher
iring. American Journal of Education 116(2), 211-242. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/649492 .
Sanford, R. A., Duncombe, R., & Armour, K. M. (2008). The role of physical activity/sport in
tackling youth disaffection and anti-social behaviour. Educational Review 60(4), 419-
435. doi: 10.1080/00131910802393464
San Martin, T. L., & Calabrese, R. L. (2010). Empowering at-risk students through appreciative
inquiry. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(2), 110-123. doi:
10.1108/09513541111107542
Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M. A., & Gower, R. (2008). The skillful teacher: Building your
teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
Sayeski, K. L., & Brown, M. R. (2011). Developing a classroom management plan using a
tiered approach. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(1), 8-17. Retrieved from
https://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Schneider, E., Evers, T. (2009). Linguistic intervention techniques for at-risk English language
learners. Foreign Language Annals 42(1), 55-77. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/216003134
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

191
Scott, S., & Palincsar A. (2006-2010). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from University of
Southern California USC LIBRARIES Reserves:
https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset
Shaddock, A., Giorcelli, L., Smith, S. (2007). Students with disabilities in mainstream
classrooms a resource for teachers. Australia: Australian Government Department of
Education
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community
partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 267-275. Retrieved from
https://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll
Silva Mangiante, E. M. (2011). Teachers matter: Measures of teacher effectiveness in low-
income minority schools. Education Assessment Evaluation Accreditation 23, 41-63.
doi: 10.1007/s11092-010-9107-x
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21
st
-century language arts
teacher? Language Arts 90(3), 192-204. Retrieved form University of Southern
California USC LIBRARIES Reserves:
https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset
Smith, A. R., Cavanaugh, C., & Moore, W. A. (2011). Instructional multimedia: An
investigation of student and instructor attitudes and student study behavior. BMC
Medical Education 11(38), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-
6920/11/38
Smyth, T. S. (2008). Who is no child left behind leaving behind? The Clearing House 81(3),
133-137. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/196883645
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

192
Spilt, J. L., Koomne, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of
teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review 23(4), 457-477. doi:
10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y
Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect
information. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(3), 97-117. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20799157
Steele, F., Sigle-Rushton, W., & Kravdal, O. (2009). Consequences of family disruption on
children’s educational outcomes in Norway. Demography 46(3), 553-574. Retrieved
from http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?
Suldo, S. M., Friedrich, A. A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J. (2009).
Teacher support and adolescents’ subjective well-being: A mixed-methods investigation.
School Psychology Review 38(1), 67-85. Retrieved from
http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?
Sullivan, J. P. (2012). A collaborative effort: Peer review and the history of teacher evaluations
in Montgomery County, Maryland. Harvard Educational Review 82(1), 142-152,167-
168. Retrieved from USC LIBRARIES http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2009). Parental divorce, sibship size, family resources, and children’s
academic performance. Social Science Research 38 (3), 622-634. doi:
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009/03/007
Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Structural inequities and the achievement gap in urban schools.
Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 22-36. doi: 10.1177/0013124504268454
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

193
Teacher’s Informed Consent Form for Observations and Interviews. (2013). Participant consent
form for observations, information release, and interviews. Retrieved from
http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/planning-research/pdf/irb/sample-consent-form-2.pdf
Thompson, S., Randsdell, M., & Rousseau, C. (2005). Effective teachers in urban school
settings: Linking teacher disposition and student performance on standardized tests.
Effective Journal of Authentic Learning 2(1), 22-36. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1951/6596
Torlakson, T. (2012). Greatness by design supporting outstanding teaching to sustain a golden
state. (California Department of Education and Commission on Teacher Credentialing)
Sacramento, CA: Task Force On Educator Excellence Report.
TranscribeMe! (2013). Transcriber login. Retrieved from http://transcribeme.com/
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfok Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7), 783-805. Retrieved from
http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.fvf%5B%5D=&s.cmd%5B%5D=&utf8
=%E2%9C%93&s.q=Teacher+efficacy%3A+Capturing+and+elusive+construct.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher
evaluations: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education
27(4), 891-899. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.02.004
Voight, A., Shinn, M., & Nation, M. (2012). Longitudinal effects of residential mobility on
academic achievement of urban elementary and middle school students. Educational
Researcher 41(9), 385-392. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12442239
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

194
Wainer, H. (2011). Value-added models to evaluate teachers: A cry for help. Chance 24(1),
11-13. Retrieved from
http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.fvf%5B%5D=IsFullText%2Ctrue%2Cf
&s.fvf%5B%5D=IsScholarly%2Ctrue%2Cf&s.fvf%5B%5D=ContentType%2CNewspap
er+Article%2Ct&s.fvf%5B%5D=IsPeerReviewed%2Ctrue%2Cf&s.q=value+added+mod
el>
Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching that supports a
culture of achievement for African American students. Urban Education 41(4), 427-456.
doi: 10.1177/0042085906289710
Watt, S. J., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E., & Taylor, J. (2013). Promoting inclusive practices
in inquiry-based science classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children 45(4), 40-48.
Retrieved from USC LIBRARIES http://www.usc.edu/libraries/
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers the art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, N. Y.: The Free Press
Weiss, J. (2010). Organizing school systems for continuous improvement. In J. Adams Jr.
(Ed.), Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning
goals (pp. 109-122). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
White, J. W. (2011). Resistance to classroom participation: Minority students, academic
discourse, cultural conflicts, and issues of representation in whole class discussion.
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 10, 250-265. doi:
10.1080/15348458.2011.598128

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

195
APPENDIX A
SURVEY COVER PAGE (OPTIONAL DATA)
Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Years teaching experience: _______________________________________________________

Specialized Trainings Related to Resource Cluster Teaching:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

196
APPENDIX B
SURVEY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

197
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Interview Questions: Interview questions were developed by the researcher and field
tested on experts in the field as part of ongoing dialogic exchange regarding validity and
application prior to data collection.
1. Describe your understanding of current evaluative measures.
2. How do you feel about current teacher evaluations and how are they used in your school?
3. Do evaluative measures influence your dispositions with and practices toward students?
4. How is student achievement linked to your evaluations?
5. How do you feel about linking student achievement with your evaluations?
6. Describe a student who presents learning challenges.
7. How do you identify students who present learning challenges?
8. How do you perceive the impact of students who present learning challenges upon their
achievement?
9. What strategies do you use to assist students presenting learning challenges?
10. Do you perceive that being an inclusive teacher who works with students presenting
learning challenges affects your evaluations? How?
11. Do current evaluative measures influence your practice with students presenting learning
challenges? If so, how? If not, why?

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

198
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Observation Form: A prototype of the observation form below has been developed based upon
Merriam’s (2009) six checklist items, and upon three research question components. The scale
has been modified to fit this form. The observation protocol developed by the researcher will be
field tested to assure validity and applicability of the observation instrument. If the research is
approved, a final version of this Observation Form will be submitted prior to data collection:

Macro Observation Form Comments
1. Physical Structure/Setting Map of classroom Sketch seating plan for each of the
three observed classrooms
2. Classroom Activities Observation Chart Observation chart for quick/subtle note
taking
3. Conversations Observation Chart Observer’s Notes
4. Students and teachers Observation Chart Transcribed/Field Notes
5. Student-teacher
interactions
Observation Chart Anecdotal Observer’s Notes
6. Subtle Factors Observation Chart Anecdotal Observer’s Notes

Students presenting learning
challenges Student achievement Teacher evaluations
Physical Structure/Setting
Classroom activities
Conversations
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors
Physical Structure/Setting
Classroom activities
Conversations
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors
-
Classroom activities
-
Students and teachers
Student-teacher interactions
Subtle factors

Classroom Map
(Front)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

199

Data Collection (Students/Teacher)
Observation Chart
Observer’s
Notes:

Number of
students
presenting
learning
challenges
Teacher-reported
challenges:
Total:
Family Crisis
Attendance Issues
Economic Hardship
Housing
Other

Achievement
(Formative/
Summative-
Scores)
Student: Score (R-reading, M-math):

Gender Male Female

Ethnicity
African
American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic White Other

Academic Behavior
On-task Off-task Requires
assistance
Seeks
assistance
Does not
seek
assistance
Other, Specify

Social Behavior

Well
behaved
Misbehaving Withdrawn Exuberant Attention
Seeking

Describe Teacher-
Student
Interactions
Frequency: Specific Type:
Tutoring:
Discipline
Other:

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

200
APPENDIX E
TEACHER CONSENT FORM FOR SURVEY, INTERVIEWS, AND OBSERVATIONS
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Student Achievement and Teacher Effectiveness in an Era of Heightened Teacher
Accountability

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the broader literature an understanding of the
dispositions and practices of teachers in all-inclusion classrooms who teach students presenting a
wide range of learning challenges. This study attempts to investigate the extent to which
evaluative measures influence these teachers’ dispositions towards and practices with students
presenting learning challenges. The researcher intends to provide answers to a number of
questions, including: Do these all-inclusive teachers take a student-centered approach or do the
pressures of evaluations drive their instructional practice? How do these teachers view
themselves and what drives them in their dispositions and instructional practices? Through
surveys, interviews, and observations, the researcher plans to underscore the relevance of
qualitative aspects of teacher evaluations. Findings from this study may be used to inform
school and district professional development planning related to improving evaluation scores.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

Teachers who volunteer to participate in the study will be asked to complete the following:
• 15-minute survey (outside instructional/paid work time)
• 60-minute interview (outside instructional/paid work time)
• 60-minute observation (during instructional/teaching time with minimal disruptions)

The survey and interview will be conducted before or after school time and not during the
participants paid work time. The observation will be conducted during instructional time with
minimal disruption to class time.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

201
CONFIDENTIALITY

Data will remain anonymous. The researcher will protect the identities of the participating
teachers so that their principal and anyone reading the research can never identify them.
Teachers will not be referred to by name, grade level or in any way that would allow parties
familiar with the school, such as the principal, to identify individual responses. Research
findings will be used to show trends from the sample as a group and not individually. Protection
of individual teacher identities is of paramount concern. There will be no identifiable
information obtained in connection with this study. Your name, address or other identifiable
information will not be collected. Audio-recordings used during interviews will be available to
participants for review and will be reviewed by only the researcher. Audio-recordings will be
destroyed within a month of publishing the research (before the end of the school year). The
data collected from surveys, interviews and observations will be stored on a password protected
computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator Aaron V. Martini (aaronteachermartini@gmail.com, 323-841-1233)
Faculty Advisor Margo Pensavalle (pensaval@usc.edu)

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This present research applies the socio‐cultural theory framework. The current climate in education includes formal emphases on student achievement and teacher performance. Students’ achievements link to teachers’ evaluations through performances on standardized tests. Certain teacher dispositions enable teachers to overcome these performance pressures in an effort to promote critical thinking and active learning among students presenting learning challenges. Research highlights a number of factors that place students who present learning challenges at‐risk for underachievement. Students who present learning challenges may under‐perform due to family crises and other disruptions. The questions guiding this research focus on how teachers reconcile performance pressures of evaluations with meeting the varying individual needs of students presenting learning challenges. The qualitative nature of this research lends a voice to how individual teachers meet the needs of students presenting learning challenges. Teacher interviews include perspectives about how the current evaluative climate hinders or encourages meeting the varying needs of students. Teachers revealed how they felt about what influences student achievement, how they recognize students presenting learning challenges, how students presenting learning challenges impact teacher evaluations, and inclusion strategies used in the classroom. Teachers’ dispositions about students presenting learning challenges, student achievement, and teacher evaluations serve as reference points throughout this research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Motives and methods: motivation, learning approaches, and academic achievement of students during first year transition to medical school

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors

PDF

A case study in best practices: how engaging and respectful communication practices in a K-8 school lead to positive outcomes for students

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

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

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

Asset Metadata

Creator Martini, Aaron V. (author)

Core Title Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/15/2014

Defense Date 02/28/2014

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,student achievement,students presenting learning challenges,teacher accountability,teacher effectiveness,teacher evaluations

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pensavalle, Margo (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond John (committee member), Humphrey, Amina (committee member)

Creator Email aaronteachermartini@gmail.com,aaronvma@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-379920

Unique identifier UC11296090

Identifier etd-MartiniAar-2361.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-379920 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MartiniAar-2361.pdf

Dmrecord 379920

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Martini, Aaron V.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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