University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

1

THE TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS THAT POSITIVELY IMPACT
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Terry T. Walker

_________________________________________________________________

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 Terry T. Walker

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

2
DEDICATION
First and foremost, I dedicate this work to the amazing love of my life. I was married
August 2010 and applied to the doctoral program in December 2010. Needless to say, my
husband, Erwin, has been completely wonderful, encouraging, and extremely supportive
throughout this process. His support was never ending from doing the cooking, laundry, cleaning
the house, to proofreading and providing thoughtful feedback for all my papers. But most of all,
he never went to bed if I was awake writing. Wherever I was, he’d find a near-by sofa to show
his support and encouragement, being there, being present. At times I would look up from my
computer, exhausted and ready to give up, but seeing his willingness to sacrifice a comfortable
bed for a sofa softly encouraged me to push past my fatigue and keep writing. It is for these and
many other reasons that I dedicate my dissertation to my strong and loving husband, Erwin, the
wind beneath my wings.
Secondly, I dedicate this work to my mother, an amazing woman who modeled strength
and courage while raising nine children independently. Over the years, I watched her work hard
to provide and making sure that we had all that we needed, even some things we wanted. She
motivated me to pursue my dreams and to acknowledge God in all that I could accomplish. On
October 30, 2012 at approximately 9:30 a.m. Verna Mae Hampton went to be with the Lord. I,
her daughter, stood by her bedside in the hospital as she took her last breath.
Even though this was the most difficult time in my life, I was able to hold on to the
memory of my Mom and push past the ache of losing one of the most important people in my
life and the life of others. The strength that she modeled for me, kept me strong to finish my
dissertation and doctoral degree. It is to her that I also dedicate my dissertation. I hope that I am
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

3
a positive example to others as she was to me. I did it Mom! Thank you for being an excellent
example and Thank God!!

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to start out by thanking my dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita. It is through his
encouragement, guidance and constant feedback that I was able to complete my dissertation
under his tutelage. I remember when I was taking too long to submit my three chapters for my
qualifying exam, it was in class during one of our one-on-one sessions, and he called me up to
check on the status of the chapters and as we finished he ended by calling me, “Sea Biscuit”.
From that day on, I was vigilant to make sure that I was not the last. Thank you Dr. Castruita,
you are one of the best.
Also instrumental in the successful completion of my dissertation is my second member
Dr. Pedro Garcia and Cohort 2011 classmates and professors. I would be remiss if I did not
mention Katy Lin my advisor and Dr. Jemenez y West for their care and attention. These past
three years have been the most rewarding, challenging and yet most memorable. Thank you for
the indelible mark that will always be with me, ingrained in the challenge to make a difference.
I was very blessed to have been placed with an awesome group within Cohort 2011.
Synee Pearson, Shenora Plenty, Daniel Sweet, Michelle Woody and Donna Lewis were most
encouraging during the tough times—with prayers and calls, I made it through. Thank you all.
I would like to thank my superintendent Richard Martinez for his support throughout the
three-years in the program. Along with the Pomona USD family, with your support and
flexibility, this endeavor would have been much more of a challenge to complete. Especially,
my Vejar Family, Claudia Ruiz for stepping in when I had to buckle down to write, my office
staff for the encouragement and working out my calendar, my teachers for your understanding
and support as well as every student that has asked “When can we call you doctor?”
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

5
I want to thank the mentors that have been such a positive influence to me. Dr. Maria Ott,
you have been the angel on my shoulder encouraging me all the way. Your role as my third
committee member truly made an impact on my success with my dissertation. Thanks to Donna
Patrick, Tina Lee, Mary K. Guinn, Al and Hattie Hollingsworth for planting the seeds.
Additionally, I was very fortunate to have my CALSA Familia. Thank you for your
support, mentoring, and overall camaraderie. You took me in and taught me a great deal about
networking and leadership through your mentoring program. The support that I received was
huge when I started the doctoral process at USC. I still remember the encouragement that many
gave me during one of our Saturday workshops. It made such a difference.
Lastly, I want to thank my family. Especially, Mom Walker, who has truly been here for
me before my mom passed away and most definitely after. God has really blessed me to have
been given two amazing Moms. To my sons Johnathon, Justin, Austin, as well as sisters and
brothers, nieces and nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles, your patience, prayers and
encouragement helped to bring this dissertation to fruition.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...4
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....7
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………… ...8
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...9
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study………………………………………………………….. ...11
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………. ...21
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………....33
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………….. ...43
Chapter 5: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… ...84
References…………………………………………………………………………………… ...96
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey……………………………………………... ...102
Appendix B: Superintendent/Principal Interview Protocol………………………. ...103
Appendix C: Letter to Participants……………………………………………….. ...104
Appendix D: Friendly Reminder Post Card to Participants………………………. ...105
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Cover Letter/Email……………………... ...106

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Participants……………………………………………………………………….. ...46
Table 2. Survey Responses by Superintendents…………………………………………… ...50
Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Survey Results……………………….....51
Table 4. Rating Scale Descriptions for Teacher Evaluations……………………………… ...61
Table 5. Types of Teacher Evaluations: Competency-Based, Outcome-Based or Both…... ...62
Table 6. District Teacher Evaluations that Contain a Professional Development…………....63
Component
Table 7. Survey Responses by Superintendents…………………………………………… ...66
Table 8. Survey Response by Superintendents…………………………………………..… ...72
Table 9. Survey Responses by Superintendents…………………………………………….. .77

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Purposes of teacher evaluation…………………………………………………... ...37
Figure 2. Gender of principals and superintendents……………………………………….. ...47
Figure 3. Ethnicity of principals and superintendents……………………………………... ...47
Figure 4. Number of years in current position as principals and superintendents………… ...48
Figure 5. Superintendent survey response averages………………………………………….52
Figure 6. Key components of the teacher evaluation based on the interviews with………. ...56
superintendents and principals
Figure 7. Superintendent survey response averages……………………………………….. ...67
Figure 8. Superintendent survey response averages……………………………………….. ...73
Figure 9. Superintendent survey response averages……………………………………….. ...78

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

9
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the key components of a teacher evaluation system
used by schools and districts in response to the demands for improved teacher effectiveness and
student achievement. As schools work toward meeting the higher standards of the Common Core
State Standards, finding key components of the teacher evaluation that improves teacher
effectiveness and increases student learning was the objective of this study. Hence, the following
questions were responded to: 1) What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high
performing school districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement?
2) To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the teacher
evaluation results in increased student achievement? 3) What should a teacher evaluation
system/tool include to improve teacher performance? and 4) To what degree are the key
components of the teacher evaluation competency-based and/or outcome-based? A mixed-
methods approach was implemented and 31 urban district superintendents, in six counties within
Southern California completed a survey. From this pool, 10 superintendents and 5 principals
were selected and participated in a semi-structured interview. Additionally, the 10 interviewed
superintendents provided their teacher evaluation documents that were analyzed as a part of the
document review. The study’s findings indicate that school districts within urban communities
that improved teacher effectiveness and increased student achievement over a three-year period,
based on API results, implemented the following key components in their teacher evaluation
system/tool: A personalized interaction between administration and teachers, professional
development specific to teacher needs, an effective rating scale to motivate improvement,
collaboration between teacher and administrator, twice-a-year self-assessments , goal setting,
administrative coaching, two-three formal observations with effective and timely feedback and
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

10
support. Additionally, the superintendents ultimately made a concerted effort to ensure an
evaluation system that is competency and outcome-based to achieve teacher effectiveness that
leads to the outcome of increased student achievement.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

11
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Over the years in the United States, the K-12 public educational system has been under a
great deal of scrutiny around effective instructional practices of teachers as well as the leaders
that evaluate them. A Nation At Risk was one reform that challenged teacher effectiveness
through the quality of education that students received in public schools. The No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was another reform movement to improve student learning through
the effectiveness of teachers and leaders. NCLB focused on holding key stakeholders
accountable for student academic success. However, measuring how well teachers teach is a low
priority in most states (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2007). Evaluations are typically
perfunctory compliance exercises that rate all teachers but yield little useful information (The
New Teacher Project, 2011).
Recently, the Obama administration and research organizations such as the Gates
Foundation have raised public awareness about teacher and principal evaluation practices and the
lack thereof. The administrative efforts resulted in the form of the Race To The Top (RTTT)
grant for school districts/states that are willing to put into place a teacher effectiveness evaluation
system. While some states have been awarded this grant, others have not. In the past, tenure was
given automatically after two or three years to teachers with no meaningful evaluation of their
teaching effectiveness (McGuinn, 2011). While there are many factors that affect student
learning, a core component is an effective teacher in the classroom. Yet, one of the most
important and administrative responsibilities is the evaluation of teachers. However, the teacher
evaluation process is most neglected (McNally, 1977).
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

12
Teachers have received some form of evaluation over the years; however, principals are
being held to a greater degree of accountability for evidence of effectiveness through student
learning at the end of each school year on standardized tests within their school and district. For
example, there is a 50 percentile point decline on standardized tests of students that are taught by
low-quality teachers for three consecutive years (Sanders & Horn, 1998). The RTTT initiative
and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have rapidly forced assessment results
to have a direct link to the evaluation of teacher quality.
Jacob and Lefgren (2008), reports that one of the most striking findings in recent
education research involves the importance of teacher quality. Principals are expected to ensure
that teachers are annually evaluated, this alone may not be sufficient to ensure a district leader’s
success in matters of quality of teachers (Forner, Bierlein-Palmer & Reeves, 2012). Additionally,
many principals shy away from putting teacher evaluations as a priority because they seek to
avoid conflict, feel ineffective, or view evaluation as too time-consuming (Sullivan & Zirkel,
1999).
Frequently principals have to face the internal pressures that result from the
accountability demands built into collective bargaining agreements and/or state laws which can
limit an administrator’s authority within the evaluation process (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The
union plays a significant role in the evaluative components of the teacher’s evaluation. A prime
example of the role that the teacher’s union has is with the RTTT grant application. One
component of the application requires a signature from the teacher’s union which solidifies their
buy-in to the agreed upon evaluation process for each district. California did not receive the
RTTT grant due to the California Teacher Association (CTA) not willing to agree on the
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

13
necessary commitment of the state as it pertained to the evaluation component of the grant (Mies,
2012).
Despite the unanimity in principle, the practical matter of guaranteeing high-quality
instruction for every student in every classroom poses a serious challenge with no simple
solution in sight. With the call for more evidence of a more effective teacher workforce from
policymakers, federal agencies, state departments of education, and local school districts, and the
results of effective schools research notes that teacher evaluations have surfaced as a key
ingredient in successful schools (Johnson, 1992). Therefore, an attempt to improve the
evaluation of teachers is urgent and important.
It is imperative that the departments of education, school districts as well as site
principals and teachers have a clear vision, buy-in as well as input from all the key stakeholders
in developing teacher evaluation tools. Additionally, there must be a system for implementation,
review, reflection, professional development and improvement of the evaluation tool. In order to
maintain highly qualified new and experienced teachers in every classroom to increase academic
achievement for all students to compete in the global economy, there must be an evaluation
system with a focus on effective instruction and annual student growth (Johnson, 1992; Oliva,
Mathers & Laine, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
Evaluation systems in public education have not been taken seriously. Teacher
evaluations have lacked accountability, union ambivalence, and public education’s practices of
using teacher credentials as a proxy for quality (Toch & Rothman, 2008). NCLB (2001)
highlighted punishing failure over rewarding success. According to Darling-Hammond (2013),
discussions about ways to improve the quality of the teaching performance is very often left out
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

14
of the conversation of the evaluation. There was a focus on absolute scores, rather than
recognizing growth and progress. NCLB prescribed a pass-fail, one-size-fits-all series of
consequences for missing their goals (Sawchuk, 2010). Yet, not considering the effectiveness of
the teacher.
Additionally, tenure was much easier to attain due to the lack of consistency among
evaluators; a teacher might be rated at the highest level by one administrator and much lower by
another (Danielson, 2012). Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (U.S. Department of Education,
2010), states that we owe it to our children and our country to act now. Therefore states and
districts have begun to revamp outdated evaluation systems. Unions are showing a willingness to
become partners in this work. However, for the states and districts that have not made these
strides to improve their evaluation system, they remain lacking in depth and focus. Yet,
superintendents will be required to develop meaningful ways of measuring teacher and principal
effectiveness in order to provide better support for educators, enhance the profession, and ensure
that every classroom has a great teacher, every school has a great leader that will produce change
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Northhouse, 2010) and as a result, every child will have a great
education and be college and career ready.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the key components of a teacher evaluation
system used by schools and districts in response to the demands for improved teacher
effectiveness and student achievement. As schools work toward meeting the higher standards of
the Common Core State Standards, linking teacher evaluation to measures of student learning is
the expectation. For example, states applying for the federal Race To The Top (RTTT) grants
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

15
offered by the Obama administration are required to include a teacher evaluation system that
includes student growth, in the states application, in order to receive the grant (Miles, 2012).
In recent years policymakers have seized on teacher evaluations as a primary lever for
improving schools. One of the most important and administrative responsibilities is the
evaluation of teachers. However, the teacher evaluation process is most neglected (McNally,
1977). School district superintendents and principals are held responsible for developing and
implementing teacher evaluation systems. With the heightened focus on reforms around teacher
effectiveness and student achievement, it is imperative to draw from theory that would help
illuminate key components of a teacher evaluation system that is vital in the success of a district,
principal, teacher and most importantly, the student.
The research questions that were created served to guide the focus of the study. They
allowed the researcher a keen focus when gathering the information surrounding the components
of the teacher evaluation that were discovered within each district. Through the research
questions, the researcher was able to identify clear objectives and maintain a more focused study.
In order to examine key components of an effective evaluation system/tool, the following
research questions were developed:
Research Questions:
1. What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high performing school
districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement?
2. To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the
teacher evaluation results in increased student achievement?
3. What should a teacher evaluation system/tool include to improve teacher
performance?
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

16
4. To what degree are the key components of the teacher evaluation competency-based
and/or outcome-based?
Importance of Study
President Obama and his administration’s RTTT competitive grant program ignited an
unprecedented wave of state, teacher, and principal evaluation reforms across the country. This
study is important to all that are impacted by ineffective leaders and teachers for a variety of
reasons. This includes lack of follow through with an evaluation tool that examines teacher
effectiveness. For example, superintendents of school districts; they play a key role in ultimately
improving student achievement through the implementation of an effective teacher evaluation
system. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) describe it as a component of a balanced leader.
This is a leader that has developed a professional wisdom about effective leadership.
Additionally, Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) describe an effective leader as one that focuses on
professional capital that is the investment in developing human capital from early childhood to
adult life. Through this study, superintendents can use the strategies in this study to help build an
effective evaluation system that supports teacher improvement and student learning.
This study is also important for principals leading the public schools. O’Day (2002),
states that principals have a professional accountability which is a focus on teacher effectiveness.
According to Darling-Hammond, Wise and Pease (1983), principals have to respond to the
parental and bureaucratic concerns for accountability. Hence, an evaluation system that has a
direct link from the effectiveness of teachers on student outcomes as well as guarantee
appropriate treatment of children in the classrooms. Shulock and Moore (2002) acknowledge that
accountability is a collective responsibility; outcomes are measured for action and cooperation.
As teachers see that principals are knowledgeable about instructional effectiveness and are
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

17
willing to give feedback as well as provide specialized knowledge as needed to meet the learning
needs of all students, teachers will be more involved in the possibility of the evaluation reform
process.
Teachers would also find value in this study. It delves into the key components of a
teacher’s evaluation to support the work of teacher effectiveness and student academic growth as
a measure on an annual basis. Additionally, the study looks at evaluation tools used to address
teacher improvement and professional development versus teacher removal. In fact policy
makers in education at the county and state level would benefit from this study due to the
stakeholders involved and the key components used to evaluate teachers. The study included
research on teacher performance as a component, student academic growth as well as an
evaluation system to meet the needs of even tenured teachers. With tenure being a major concern
with teachers that are ineffective, developing key components of an effective evaluation tool
would be a benefit to any public school entity.
Finally, this study gave clear and specific key components for an evaluation tool that
meets the needs of all stakeholders, mainly teachers and students. The components include the
demands for accountability with the academic success of the students in K-12 public schools. In
addition, this study gave states, counties, districts, superintendents, principals as well as teachers
a model system for continuous improvement that is transformational. The study used a
concurrent mixed methods approach to determine the key components of an effective evaluation
system/tool for K-12 public education. Evaluation documents were collected and used to
examine the key components of each districts evaluation system through comparisons of each
document. A survey of superintendents was used as well to determine what is believed to be the
key components for the effectiveness in teacher performance and student growth. Additionally, a
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

18
view of competency-based and outcome-based evaluations and its impact on students and
teachers were explored using qualitative interviews with California urban K-12 public school
superintendents and principals.
Limitations
The one major limitation to this study was the time frame in which the researcher
gathered data. The ability to have a large percentage of superintendents respond to the survey
was a potential barrier to a significant superintendent response rate. The primary data collection
period was during the summer and fall months and consequently most administrators were on
vacation, out of the office or in conferences. The ability to interview the principals and
superintendents may be a potential limitation due to availability and scheduling.
Delimitations
The data from this study was from document analysis, surveys and interviews of
principals and superintendents that were willing to participate in this study. However, the
researcher was aware of the bias that could have occurred during the study.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as stated below:
Accountability: The notion that people and organizations should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their ability or inability
to do so.
Competency-Based/Formative Evaluation: A supervisory function intended to assist and
support teachers in professional growth and the improvement of teaching. It helps teachers
improve their performance by providing data, judgments, and suggestions that have implications
for what to teach and how (Manning, 1988).
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

19
Evaluations: Signify summary judgments about the quality of an employee’s
performance, as well as the actions taken based on these judgments.
Outcome-Based/Summative Evaluation: An administrative function intended to meet the
organizational need for teacher accountability, it serves administration decision making with
respect to hiring and firing, promotion and tenure, assignments, and salary (Manning, 1988).
School District: A location education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists to operate public schools.
Student Growth: The change in student achievement for an individual student between
two or more points at a time.
Superintendent: The chief executive officer of a school system. The individual works
directly under the supervision of the school board.
Teacher: A person who teaches, usually as a job at a school or similar institution.
Teacher Effectiveness: Impact that classroom factors, such as teaching methods, teacher
expectations, classroom organization, and use of classroom resources, have on student
performance (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, & Robinson 2004)
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 presents an overview of the
urgency around the need for an evaluation system in K-12 public education that includes teacher
effectiveness as well as student growth as components of the system. Chapter 2 concentrates on
the review of current literature on evaluation systems in K-12 public education. The review
provides a clear understanding of evaluation systems and the impact that it has had on teacher
effectiveness as well as student achievement. Chapter 3 focuses on the research design and
methodology utilized in this study. Additionally, this chapter presents the problem statement, the
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

20
purpose as well as the conceptual model that addressed the study. Hence, the collection
procedures for the data, population for the study, and analysis procedures for the study is also
addressed in this chapter. Chapter 4 includes criteria for selection of participants, demographic
information on the districts participating in the study and the specific findings from the study
based on each research question. Chapter 5 focuses on connecting the findings from the study to
the literature as well as a summary of the findings. The chapter ends with the implications for
future research and a consideration for other states, school districts, and schools to take heed to
the need to revise its evaluation systems.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and the state accountability
systems have placed greater responsibility on superintendents and principals for initiating
reforms and enhancing student learning (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004;
Marks & Nance, 2007). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
(2012), states that in a comparative review of school leadership, evaluating teacher quality is the
core of effective leadership. According to Davis, Ellett, and Annunziata (2002), school-based
administrative and professional leadership play essential roles in determining the meaning of and
value of teacher evaluation in schools, and how teacher evaluation can improve teaching and
learning.
Practitioners, researchers, and policy makers agree that the most current teacher
evaluation systems do little to help teachers improve (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley,
Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012). For instance, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2005) states that
many districts use an unsystematic evaluation practice sometimes characterized as ‘drive by’
evaluations. In fact, according to Kyriakides and Demetriou (2007), one of the major problems
faced by most K-12 educational systems is the need to develop a valid personnel evaluation
system. Additionally, many principals shy away from putting evaluating teachers as a priority
into practice because they seek to avoid conflict, feel ineffective or view the evaluation as too
time-consuming (Conley, 1991). Yet, Sullivan and Zirkel (1999) state that school districts have
to hold principals clearly accountable for effectively evaluating teachers.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

22
Over the last decade teacher evaluations have assumed increasing importance (Darling-
Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983). With A Nation at Risk and NCLB, accountability is at the
forefront with specific concerns about the quality of classroom teaching and teachers (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2012). Yet, few districts take very seriously the teacher evaluation system as an
accountability measure due to its perceived poor validity (Peterson, 2000). It follows, then that
along with the urgency in accountability for increased student achievement and highly effective
teachers, is the need to determine the key components of an evaluation system that would
improve teacher effectiveness and impact student learning that principals and district
superintendents can implement in school districts.
This review of the literature highlights the teacher evaluation system through a
chronological view and context of teacher evaluation. The key components of the teacher
evaluation process, from the research, were addressed. In looking at the literature on teacher
evaluations, determining what is needed for an evaluation system that responds to the
accountability demands for improved teacher effectiveness and increased student achievement
were identified. The review of the literature begins with a chronological view of the focus on
teacher evaluations, a review of the literature on key components that make for an effective
system, and the current status of teacher evaluations with challenges of accountability.
To increase student achievement and improve teacher effectiveness, as well as respond to
the demands of NCLB there must be an evaluation system that is results oriented for teachers,
students, and school-based leadership. Two major systems for evaluating teachers are identified
in the literature; they are (a) competency-based and (b) outcome-based teacher evaluation. In the
conclusion, specific key components of the teacher evaluation process were detailed. These
components provided both a comprehensive description of each evaluation component as well as
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

23
how it responded to the degree of state and federal accountability as well as the improvement of
teacher effectiveness.
Background of the Teacher Evaluation Process
In the 1940’s, educators and researchers emphasized teacher traits, such as voice,
appearance, emotional stability, trustworthiness, warmth and enthusiasm as the criteria that
became the centerpiece for evaluating teachers (Danielson & McGreal (2000). However, there
was no real evidence that linked the traits of the 1940’s to good teaching or student learning.
According to Danielson and McGreal (2000), it was not until the 1960s that a coherent focus on
teacher appraisals began to emerge. With the push to enhance basic skills acquisition and
improve science and mathematics teaching, research into what teachers did or could do to
improve basic skills was provoked (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Accordingly, during the
1970’s significant advances in clinical supervision was occurring to improve instruction, while
other researchers were developing classroom observation instruments to have a more accurate
depiction of what teachers were doing in the classrooms (Danielson & McGreal, 2002).
Consequently, in determining what effects teacher classroom behavior has in relation to
student achievement led to teacher effectiveness research (Danielson & McGreal, 2002; Kelly,
2012). The research did show that there was a correlation with classroom instruction and student
achievement (Danielson & McGreal, 2002; Milanowski et al., 2005). As a result of the research,
a set of fundamental teaching skills that are a part of the current framework for teaching was
established. Moreover, it provided a major communication link between the school system and
teachers in the form of a teacher evaluation (Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, &
Bernstein, 1985).
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

24
During the same time period when researchers were determining the effects of teacher
classroom instruction, Madeline Hunter (1982) and her colleagues from the University of
California Los Angeles (UCLA) looked at a behavioristic view of learning theory. As a result,
Hunter and her colleagues developed prescriptive teaching practices designed to improve teacher
decision making and enhance student learning (Danielson & McGreal, 2005). Additionally, the
Gallup (1979) poll showed that the public believed the key to educational improvement was in
upgrading the quality of teachers. Hence, the domination of the Hunter model in the 1980s with
the increased emphasis on teacher-centered structured classrooms. The Hunter model consisted
of a seven step lesson design: a) anticipatory set, b) statement of objective, c) instructional input,
d) modeling, e) checking for understanding, f) guided practice, and g) independent practice.
While Hunter’s structured classroom model is an important component of the teacher’s
instructional strategies, it is only a part of what is seen now as effective teaching (Danielson &
McGreal, 2005).
While Hunter instructional model was only a component of effective teaching, it made an
impact during the ‘70s and ‘80s to a great degree in that, state policymakers and local school
districts generated evaluation criteria based on the seven instructional components. Teacher
evaluation attracted a greater interest when the National Commission on Excellence in Education
published A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), which included a
recommendation that required teacher evaluations. Additionally, teachers were to be required to
meet high educational standards, to demonstrate competence in academic discipline(s), and
performance-based strategies (Wise et al., 1985). Yet, some evaluation instruments that were
developed consisted of rating scales and checklists that accompanied the evaluation. This
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

25
criterion promoted a summative orientation toward evaluation that persisted into the 1990s which
was not effective (Danielson & McGreal, 2005 and Darling-Hammond, 2013).
The focus was then turned to formative evaluation system to support teacher growth and
development as well as meeting the accountability demands of the state and federal government.
According to Danielson and McGreal (2005), in having a formative evaluation for teachers, the
evaluation system had to have these six specific conditions:
1. Collaborative decision making and a rethinking of the traditional view of the teacher
evaluation;
2. Increased adult professionals i.e. teachers, having an active role in the instructional
improvements and positive reinforcement as well as support commensurate with their
effort and productivity;
3. Increased awareness and complexity of teaching, content pedagogy as well as data
collection and self-reflection for effective teaching;
4. Increased need to differentiate both professional development and teacher evaluation
to better fit the pedagogical stages that characterize the teaching staff;
5. Understanding about professional development and its link to the teacher evaluation;
6. Move from the traditional evaluation of classroom observation and follow-up to a
more transforming practice of evaluating teachers by having peer and administration
helping teachers reflect on their instruction or giving teachers options for peer
coaching, conducting action research projects, portfolios, or self-directed professional
development.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

26
Moreover, formative evaluations were developed in hope to shape how schools and districts
engage in designing new evaluation systems (Danielson & McGreal, 2005) and provide
information that shapes teacher practice (Peterson, 2004).
In the late 1980s and 1990s a new view of teaching and learning emerged to ensure that
the teacher evaluation would lead to improved job performance (Johnson, 1992). Additionally,
according to Duke (1990) the two primary purposes for teacher evaluation are accountability and
professional growth. Based on the purposes for teacher evaluations, Popham (1988), reports that
there are six approaches to teacher evaluations that have been developed over the past 30 years
that improve teaching and learning. They are: a) Evaluation for enhancing instruction: Linking
Teacher evaluation and Staff Development; b) Create Rather Than Wait Your Fate in Teacher
Evaluation; c) Judgment-Based Teacher Evaluation; d) Teacher Performance Evaluation: A Total
Systems Approach; e) Evaluating Teachers as Professionals: The Duties-Based Approach.
Consequently, these approaches fit into three discrete categories: 1) outcome-based evaluation,
2) competency-based evaluation or 3) outcome-based and competency-based evaluation.
Increasingly, the teacher evaluation constitutes an important aspect of quality improvement in
public education (Wise et al., 1985).
The literature supports the need for teacher and administrator evaluations (Danielson &
McGreal, 2005). The concerns over the United States economy and the increased pressure for
students to compete in the changing job market shifted the study to effective teaching and the
need for teacher evaluations to improve job performance and student learning (Danielson &
McGreal, 2005; Johnson, 1992).
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

27
Key Components of Teacher Evaluation Systems
In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), (2006). The law was amended to increase the number of highly
qualified teachers and principals as well as to hold schools and local education agencies (LEAs)
accountable for improvements in student academic achievement (Benedict, Thomas, Kimerling,
& Leko, 2013). Therefore, engaging in both formal and informal evaluations of classroom
teaching and learning has become common to most administrators (Davis et al., 2002). Yet
having a system for principals and district personnel to use that supports teacher effectiveness
and improves student learning is what is still lacking in K-12 public education.
Teacher evaluations are a significant predictor of student achievement (Jacob & Lefgren,
2008). Marzano and Toth (2013) concurred that the role of teacher in the classroom is significant
when they stated that if students are not demonstrating knowledge growth in a particular
teacher’s classroom, then the teacher is ineffective. According to Donaldson (2012) despite the
less than stellar track record, teacher evaluation has taken center stage in recent efforts to reform
public schools in the United States. In looking at components of evaluations, teacher
effectiveness and student learning continued to emerge in the literature. A specific component,
teacher effectiveness, surfaced, and the consequent need to look at outcomes of teacher
effectiveness and its direct link to student learning. This component is imperative when
developing an evaluation system. For example, according to Milanowski et al. (2005) and
Sanders and Rivers (1996), if a student is given the opportunity of being assigned to three top-
rated teachers in consecutive years, the cumulative gain in achievement in comparison to a
student assigned to three lower-rated teachers consecutively, would be substantial.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

28
Wise et al., (1985) and Darling-Hammond et al., (1983) reported that the teacher
evaluation can be used to improve personnel decisions and staff development. The evaluation
should serve the individual teacher and the organization through providing improvement in
performance as well as accountability (Wise et al., 1985). Using improvement and staff
development, the focus is on teacher efficacy through creating internal verifiable knowledge
rather than imposing rules of behavior. With increased performance and organizational efficacy
for teachers in their evaluation gained: 1) convergence between teachers and administrators in
accepting the goals and means for task performance, 2) higher levels of personalized interaction
and resource exchange between administration and teachers, 3) lower prescriptiveness of work
tasks, 4) teachers’ perceptions that evaluations are soundly based and that the evaluation is
linked to rewards or sanctions, 5) teacher input into the evaluation criteria as well as diversity to
evaluation criteria (Wise et al., 1985).
According to Barth (2002), schools exist to promote learning in all their inhabitants. This
included teachers learning through their evaluation system. Milanowski et al. (2005) states that if
we believe that quality instruction makes a difference, then it requires an accurate and reliable
system of measuring instructional behavior, and evidence that the behavior we hold teachers
accountable for is related to student learning. Therefore a standards-based teacher evaluation
system is analogous to standards for students and is its logical complement (Milanowski et al.,
2005). The standards-based teacher evaluation system provides a comprehensive description of
desired teacher performance—a ‘competency model’ that describes what teachers should know
and be able to do in order to facilitate student achievement (Milanowski et al., 2005).
The standards-based teacher evaluation does not compare teachers to each other but this
evaluation system compares multiple forms of evidence on teacher performance to a set of
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

29
detailed rating scales based on the standards that describe several levels of teacher performance.
This rating scale is called a rubric that is criterion referenced (Milanowski et al., 2005). This
evaluation system can contribute to a sense of shared conception of good teaching since the
standards provide a clear set of expectations and a vocabulary to discuss instruction (Milanowski
et al., 2005). Additionally, the goal of the standards-based evaluation system is to provide better
signals for teachers seeking to improve their performance, to improve teacher capacity and
influence instruction, which is likely to be the strongest means under a school’s control to pursue
the end of higher student achievement (Milanowski et al., 2005).
Donaldson (2012), reports that teachers make a crucial difference in students’ academic
performance. Yet, teacher quality through performance evaluations has made little ground in
terms of teachers’ instructional improvement (Donaldson, 2012). Therefore, Donaldson (2012)
conducted a study to determine the components of an evaluation that would yield the greatest
impact. The teacher evaluation consisted of student growth on academic performance measures
and observation-based data. The goal was two-fold, to improve teacher instructional practice and
increase student growth on state tests. As a result of the study the following components were
needed for a teacher evaluation: 1) personal goal setting by the teacher with their administrator,
2) teachers having a direct role in developing the evaluation system, 3) use of student
performance data in the teacher’s goals. Teachers having real consequences for achieving or
failing to achieve their student performance goals seemed to produce demonstrable changes in
teacher behavior (Donaldson, 2012).
Duke (1990) emphasizes that the two primary purposes for teacher evaluation are
accountability and professional growth. He analyzes the individual characteristics associated
with professional growth and organizational characteristics that facilitate growth. Through
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

30
Through Duke’s (1990) analysis of the characteristics of individual and organizational growth,
he determined that a growth-oriented teacher evaluation is what fosters the cultivation of
uniqueness and virtuosity. The outcomes of the growth-oriented teacher evaluation system are 1)
teachers have high expectations for themselves, 2) teachers are willing to take risks, 3) teachers
have a positive orientation toward change, 4) prefer growth opportunities over cash rewards, 5)
teachers have an awareness of needed professional development, 6) teachers set tangible
professional goals at the beginning of the evaluation cycle each year.
According to Wright, Horn, and Sanders (1997) effective teachers appear to be effective
with students at all achievement levels regardless of the level of heterogeneity in their
classrooms. Students who have ineffective teachers will achieve inadequate progress
academically regardless of how similar or different they are regarding their academic
achievement. In criticizing and arguing equity issues in the fair application of teacher evaluation
systems, teachers have often directed their comments to classroom context characteristics. Yet,
the results of the study completed by Wright et al., (1997) is that a clear immediate implication
is, that more can be done to improve education by improving the effectiveness of teachers than
by any other factor.
School-based administrative and professional leadership plays an essential role in
determining the meaning and value of the teacher evaluation in schools (Davis et al., 2002).
According to Davis et al. (2002) leadership makes the difference between perfunctory
summative teacher evaluations and meaningful assessment of the teaching and learning process,
that has the potential to enhance the quality of teaching and student learning. Davis et al. (2002)
acknowledges that a model teacher evaluation system’s components that emphasize teacher and
administrator collaboration, share a common voice, professional growth, and a practice of self-
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

31
assessment. Additionally, if the evaluation system is to be effective, then there has to be an
integration of: 1) new conception of school leadership that fosters supportive cultures and a
learning organization, 2) reflective professional practice by educators that is linked to actual
practice, radical shift in leadership style, and 3) leadership develop relationships (Davis et al.
2002).
One last component to be considered for the teacher evaluation is teacher quality.
According to Peterson (2004) teacher quality is determined in a subjective way, but the
determination is a kind of expert subjectivity that includes all scientific thinking. Moreover,
many current views of teacher effectiveness are defined by student gain scores on standardized
test, professional growth, and performance. However, the key components to teacher evaluations
should aim to improve performance, find deficient teachers, compare teachers, and use mandated
practices (Peterson, 2004). Additionally, Peterson (2004) states that leaders should document
current effectiveness, highlight teacher success, and give teachers a choice in data gathering.
Summary
One of the major problems faced by most educational systems is the need to develop a
valid educational system (Kyriakides & Demetriou, 2007). The Reform Support Network (2012),
states that in the past two years many states have made changes to their teacher evaluation
systems to incorporate multiple measures of teacher effectiveness and student performance
information. The Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have to make changes in order to see the
improvement in instruction and student performance that is expected of the schools in California.
In respect to the literature on teacher evaluations, there is a plethora of researchers that
have their ideas as to the key components that make an effective evaluation and meet the needs
of students in our public schools. Subsequently, LEAs may have a new teacher evaluation system
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

32
but the systems are not being used effectively or consistently either at the site with the principal
or at the LEA. Additionally, according to Stronge (1991), no system can succeed beyond the
abilities of those implementing the program. This axiom certainly holds true for the need to
transform and implement the teacher evaluation system/tool.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

33
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Practitioners, researchers, and policy makers agree that the most current teacher
evaluation systems do little to help teachers improve or to support personnel decision making
(Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012). According to Darling-
Hammond, Wise, and Pease (1983) the teacher evaluation has assumed increasing importance.
Additionally, the evaluation of America’s schoolteachers is, with few exceptions, an anemic and
impotent enterprise – promising much but producing little (Popham, 1988). In fact, few issues in
education are more explosive than the evaluation of teachers and teaching (McGreal, 1983).
Teacher evaluations are required by law in most states (Peterson & Peterson, 1984).
Those responsible for teacher evaluations must consider both formative and summative
dimensions (Danielson & McCrea, 2005). The teacher evaluation must measure the attributes it
purports to measure (Peterson & Peterson, 1984). As a result, the demands of improving teaching
and learning in public schools are strong (Kersten & Israel, 2005). From A Nation at Risk (1983)
to No Child Left Behind (2001), districts and school principals feel a tremendous amount of
internal as well as external pressure to improve the quality of teaching in the schools in an effort
to increase student achievement and teacher effectiveness (Kersten & Israel, 2005).
The study focused on the key components of effective teacher evaluation systems being
used in 60 school districts in the following counties in California: Los Angeles County, Orange,
San Bernardino County, San Diego, Santa Clara and Riverside County. The focus is on
principals and district superintendents and their belief in the components needed in an effective
teacher evaluation system.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

34
The purpose of the study was to identify the key components of teacher evaluation
systems/tools that are working in 60 selected districts meeting the identified criteria and have
been using an evaluation on a consistent basis. Of particular importance within the scope of this
study are the key components that district and their superintendents use in their system of
evaluating teachers. The researcher compared the tools used in the process of determining
teacher effectiveness that correspondingly increased student achievement.
The stakes for effective school leaders is high in today’s climate of system-wide
accountability and a lack of empirically supported information on assessment and evaluation
practices with principals, which exist around teacher evaluations (Goldring, Cravens, Porter,
Elliott, & Carson, 2009). Yet, there are school districts in California that have systems in place in
designated school districts with set criteria and implementation cycles for teacher evaluations.
This chapter provides an outline of the study and the methodology. It specifically
examines the purpose of the study, research questions, research design, participants,
instrumentation, data analysis procedures, and ethical considerations.
Purpose of the Study
This study identified the key components of a teacher evaluation system used by schools
and districts in response to the demands for improved student achievement and teacher
effectiveness. As schools work toward meeting the higher standards of the Common Core State
Standards, linking teacher evaluation to measures of student learning is the expectation. For
example, states applying for the federal Race To The Top grant offered by the Obama
administration are required to include a teacher evaluation system in the state’s application in
order to receive the grant (Miles, 2012).
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

35
In recent years, policymakers have seized on teacher evaluations as a primary lever for
improving schools. One of the most important and administrative responsibilities is the
evaluation of teachers. However, the teacher evaluation process is most neglected (McNally,
1977). School district superintendents and principals are held responsible for developing and
implementing teacher evaluation systems. With the heightened focus on reforms around teacher
effectiveness and student achievement, it is imperative to draw from theory that helped
illuminate key components of a teacher evaluation system that is vital in the success of a district,
principal, teacher as well as student.
Research Questions
In order to examine the effectiveness of the evaluation system, four research questions
were developed to serve as a guide throughout the study. They allowed the researcher to better
expand upon the information surrounding the key components discovered within each district.
Through the research questions, the researcher was able to identify clear objectives and maintain
a more focused study. In order to examine the selected California unified school district
evaluation system components, the following research questions guided the study:
1. What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high performing school
districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement?
2. To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the
teacher evaluation results in increased student achievement?
3. What should a teacher evaluation system/tool include to improve teacher
performance?
4. To what degree are the key components of the teacher evaluation competency-based
and/or outcome-based?
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

36
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study and was conducted with
superintendents and principals identifying the key components of the teacher evaluation
system/tool that lead to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Through the research
three themes were developed and meshed into a visual flowchart (Figure 1):
1. Darling-Hammond, Wise, and Pease (1983) – Purposes for Teacher Evaluation: Four
Purposes
a. Individual Staff Development
b. Individual Personal Decisions (Job Status)
c. School Improvement
d. School Status Decision
2. Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens (2009) – Model for Vanderbuilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education One Core Component
a. Individual, team, and school goals for rigorous student academic and social
learning
3. Hallinger (2011) – Open- System Leadership to the School Community System
a. Beliefs
b. Knowledge experience
c. Vision and Goals
d. Academic Structure and Processes
e. Student Outcomes

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

37

Figure 1. Purposes of teacher evaluation

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

38
The conceptual frameworks from Darling-Hammond et al. (1983), Goldring et al. (2009),
and Hallinger (2011) are a flow chart directly linked to the key components of the teacher
evaluation system based on the research. Through the mixed-methods study, the researcher
developed surveys online for 60 superintendents (See Appendix A) to complete. Interviews (See
Appendix B) were conducted with the ten superintendents as well as the five principals for the
qualitative data. Additionally, evaluation documents were collected from each superintendent
that participated in the interview process.
These three frameworks served as a lens by which the research questions were generated,
the surveys, interview questions and documents were analyzed. This model includes the need for
an effective teacher evaluation as well as effective leadership from the principal and
superintendent as a key to the success of the system and the outcomes of improved teacher
effectiveness along with increased student achievement.
Sample and Population
Superintendents
The criteria for participation by superintendents in this study were the following:
1. Superintendent has an established evaluation system being used in each district.
2. Superintendent’s district must have 50% of the schools meeting their API over three
years.
3. Superintendent’s district must have 40% free or reduced meals.
4. Superintendent heading a district that has an average daily attendance (ADA) of more
than 5,000 students.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

39
5. Superintendent’s district has more than 60% minority (English Learners, Hispanic,
and African-American) students.
6. Superintendent must have a minimum of one year in the district.
The aforementioned criteria ensure that the researcher has a purposeful sample by which
to select the superintendent sample. It was important to include superintendents leading districts
with a least 5,000 students to ensure a broad range of superintendent experiences were
considered. Ten of the 60 superintendents were interviewed.
Principals
The following criteria were used in principal selection:
1. Principal must use the teacher evaluation system.
2. Principal must be presiding over a school meeting their API.
3. Principal’s school must have over 50% free or reduced meals.
4. Principal heading the school must have an average daily attendance of more than 600
students.
5. Principal is leading a school with more than 50% minority students.
6. Principal must have a minimum of one year of experience.
Five principals were selected to participate in the study to get input on the evaluation
system and their belief in its impact on teacher effectiveness as well as student achievement.
Instrumentation
The instruments listed below were used by the researcher in the mixed methods data
collection. The mixed methods utilized in this study, embedded (Creswell, 2009) the data
through collecting qualitative data as the primary, and the quantitative data to provide support to
the qualitative data.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

40
Interviews
Through a semi structured (Merriam, 2009) interview process, the researcher was able to
identify individual perspectives, of superintendents, at each of the ten districts selected. The
interview was an essential aspect of the data collection. However, the researcher refrained from
passing judgment during this time as suggested by Patton (2002). In addition, the interviews
were neo-positive. Roulston (2007) defines neo-positive as the interviewer asking good
questions, minimizing bias, generating quality data, which produces valid findings (Merriam,
2009).
The selection of five principals to participate in the interview process was beneficial to
the validity of the research. The perspective of the principal is valuable. It gave the interviewer a
first-hand opportunity to gather data directly from the teacher’s evaluator. Being able to hear
what components the principal believed were needed in the teacher’s evaluation, increased the
level of findings in the researcher’s conclusion.
Surveys
Statements were utilized for this process that was piloted to insure that the survey would
only take 10 minutes. The survey provided a great deal of data that gave further insight on the
evaluation system that was being implemented by the school districts. The survey allowed
superintendents of the 60 school districts that participated to complete the survey anonymously
unless the superintendent was willing to participate in an interview. The superintendents
completed a survey from survey monkey. The survey statement/instrument is located in
Appendix A.
The interviews were face-to-face and on the phone. They lasted approximately 30
minutes and an audio recorder was used during the interview as well as field notes were taken by
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

41
the researcher. There were10 questions in the interview and the interview instrument is located in
Appendix B.
Documents
The teacher evaluation document was collected from each of the districts where the
superintendent participated in the interviews with the researcher. The documents collected were
used as a comparison with the data collected from the interviews, survey and state test data. The
triangulation provided responses to the research questions.
Data Analysis Procedures
This study used a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2007) as previously noted. An
analysis conducted used the teacher evaluation document from each of the districts from which
the researcher interviewed a superintendent. A frequency table was established based on the
survey results. The data analysis required a great deal of attention in order to ensure that it is
correctly analyzed. Using a mixed methods approach permits the researcher, as aforementioned,
an opportunity to triangulate data results (Patton, 2002). The qualitative part of the data are the
interviews. The questions are closed-ended and semi-structured (Merriam, 2009). The
quantitative data collection was the surveys.
Creswell (2007) provides detailed guidelines for the researcher to follow when data was
gathered and analyzed. First was to gather the data from the surveys and have the audio
recording of the interviews professionally transcribed. Upon reading the information from the
survey and transcripts of the interviews the researcher began a detailed analysis. This analysis
included categorizing results and coding them for further analysis. The results were kept on an
Excel spreadsheet document. From the results, data tables and charts were developed using the
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

42
data and triangulation with a focus on the conceptual framework and the key components of the
teacher evaluation.
Ethical Consideration
Throughout this study, every measure was taken to ensure strict confidentiality of all
participants. The data collection and fieldwork strategies involved personal experience and
engagement because the researcher had direct contact with the phenomenon under study. The
qualitative data that was utilized including the interviews, document reviews and survey, in order
to allow triangulation to take place, included the quantitative survey data. There was a holistic
perspective, allowing understanding of the study. All respondents were not under any obligation
to participate in this study.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

43
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The 21
st
Century has brought with it a greater demand for pre-kindergarten to twelfth
grade public schools in the area of accountability with teacher effectiveness as well as student
achievement. One way that this accountability is addressed is through the system of evaluating
teachers. In order to maintain highly qualified new and experienced teachers in every classroom
and to increase academic achievement for all students to compete in the global economy, there
must be an evaluation system with a focus on effective instruction and annual student growth
(Johnson, 1992; Oliva, Mathers, and Laine, 2009).
This chapter presents and discusses the data collected from a mixed-method study. The
qualitative methods lead the study. The researcher was seeking to identify and determine the key
components of the teacher evaluation that leads to teacher effectiveness and student
achievement.
The quantitative data was collected through an online survey. An instrument was
specifically designed for this study. The survey consisted of questions directly linked to the
teacher evaluation and whether the components in the evaluation system/tool addressed teacher
effectiveness and student achievement. Additionally, the survey looked at key components of
each district’s evaluation system/tool, and the degree to which it supports teachers and students.
Surveys were distributed to 60 superintendents from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego and Santa Clara within California, and 31 were completed, which
provided a response rate of 52%.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

44
The qualitative data was collected from 10 of the 31 survey respondents. In addition to
the ten superintendents interviewed, five principals were selected and interviewed. Qualitative
data was collected through interviews and the teacher evaluation documents. Teacher evaluation
documents were collected from each respondent superintendent interviewed. Superintendents
and principals were from both unified and union school districts.
This chapter presents the response rate, demographic information of the respondents, and
the research questions. The findings were presented using the mixed methods approach which
incorporated both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analysis was presented
first from the survey data using a Likert-like scale. The researcher then presented the qualitative
analysis from the interview data, and teacher evaluation documents. Findings were presented
based on themes that emerged during the analyses. A grounded theory approach was used in the
analysis. According to Creswell (2009) grounded theory is a strategy of inquiry in which the
researcher derives a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the
views of the participants. The chapter concluded with the researcher’s discussion of the meaning
of the research findings. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high performing school
districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement?
2. To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the
teacher evaluation results in increased student achievement?
3. What should a teacher evaluation system/tool include to improve teacher
performance?
4. To what degree are the key components of the teacher evaluation competency-based
and/or outcome-based?
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

45
Sample Population and Response Rate
The criteria for the selected superintendents in this study were the following: The first
criterion was that the district must have above 50% of the schools meeting their API for three
consecutive academic years. The second criterion was that the district had 40% of the students
receiving free or reduced meals as well as an average daily attendance of more than 5,000
students. The third criterion was that the district had more than 60% minority students. The
fourth criterion was that the superintendent had a minimum of one year in their position at the
district. The participants from this study were selected from Northern and Southern California
within the following counties: Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and
San Diego. The study included union and unified school districts that consisted of elementary,
secondary as well as K-12 schools. Based on the criteria, there were 60 superintendents selected
to participate in an online survey.
Each superintendent was sent a letter (See Appendix C) and then a postcard (See
Appendix D) through the US Postal Services requesting their participation in an anonymous
online survey for the quantitative data collection. Of the 60 surveys requested, 31superintendents
completed the survey. One question on the survey asked if they were willing to participate in an
interview. From the 31survey respondents, ten superintendents were interviewed based on the
results of predetermined criteria and is presented in Table 1.
Five principals of the ten districts were participants in the interviews for the qualitative
data collection. Additionally, teacher evaluation documents were collected from the ten
superintendents that were interviewed. These evaluation documents were collected as a part of
research and the analysis of what the key components of the teacher evaluation, that leads to
teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

46
Table 1
Participants
Superintendent District Type
Minority
Population
Free and Reduced
Lunch
Superintendent 1 Elementary 64.1% 72.9%
Superintendent 2 Unified 72.0% 68.3%
Superintendent 3 Unified 81.6% 64.9%
Superintendent 4 Unified 70.4% 40.4%
Superintendent 5 Elementary 66.3% 72.4%
Superintendent 6 Union 51.3% 46.9%
Superintendent 7 Union Elementary 47.8% 40.0%
Superintendent 8 Unified 43.1% 70.8%
Superintendent 9 Unified 79.9% 76.7%
Superintendent 10 Union Elementary 57.6% 60.2%

Demographic Data
The demographic data for the superintendents interviewed were desegregated by gender,
ethnicity and years of experience in their role of superintendent or principal. The data reflects
that eight of the superintendents were male and two were female. There was a difference in
number of the principals’ gender data over the superintendent data whereby out of 5 principals 2
were male and 3 were female. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of responses by gender.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

47

Figure 2. Gender of principals and superintendents

Additionally, of the ten superintendents, there were 7-Caucasian, 2 -Hispanic, and 1-African-
American. Of the principals there were 2- Caucasian, 1- African-American, 1- Asian and 1-
Hispanic. This data is seen in Figure 3, which clearly depicts the principal respondents were
more ethnically diverse in comparison to the superintendent respondents. However, the
superintendent ethnic diversity as well as gender diversity is very similar to that of the state of
California.

Figure 3. Ethnicity of principals and superintendents

8
2
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Superintendent
Principal
Female
Male
1
1
7
2
2
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Superintendent
Principal
Asian Hispanic Caucasian African American
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

48
Subsequently, of the 10 superintendent respondents 70% have over five years experience
as a superintendent and of the five principal respondents had 60% with over three years
experience. Figure 4 clearly demonstrates that both principals and superintendents had the
experience with the evaluation tool, which adds to the validity of their responses on the survey
and the interviews.

Figure 4. Number of years in current position as principals and superintendents

While the demographic data was significant, the researcher did not include this in the
analysis since there was no direct correlation to the teacher evaluation tool based on the
demographic data that determined the key components of the teacher evaluation system/tool. It
should be noted that these demographic factors may be considered in future research.
Findings
The researcher analyzed the surveys, interview transcripts and teacher evaluation
documents. As a result of the analysis, the following two categories emerged as a description of
1 1
1
2
2 2
1
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0-2 3-5 6-8 10+
Superintendent
Principal
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

49
the two types of teacher evaluation systems/tools that were used either in the past or present by
the 10 school districts in the study. The two types of teacher evaluations were: 1) Traditional and
2) Transformational. In reviewing the interview transcripts, superintendents and principals
responded to the interview questions in terms of the evaluation tool and the evaluation process.
Therefore, as the Traditional and Transformational evaluations were discussed, the researcher
framed them within the two subcategories that have been analyzed and discussed in each of the
four research questions. Each question was addressed based on quantitative surveys and followed
by qualitative interviews and document analyses.
Research Question One: What are Key Components of the Teacher Evaluation Used in
High Performing School Districts That Improve Teacher Effectiveness and Impact Student
Achievement?
The survey (See Appendix B) consisted of seven questions designed to answer research
question one. Research question one sought to distinguish key components of the evaluation
system/tool that improve teacher effectiveness and positively impact student achievement. A
continuous response format for the survey instrument was used. This format yields interesting
information about the evaluation system/tool being measured (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Each
question was on a four point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1(Disagree) to 4 (Highly Agree).
There were 7 of 9 questions that addressed research question one. The statements given on the
survey that related to this research question were:
The teacher evaluation system/tool…
§ Helps you to support principals at the school site.
§ Gives you an opportunity to engage in dialogue with your principals/teachers around
effective instructional practices.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

50
§ Helps you to hold your principals/teachers accountable to meeting high-stakes testing.
§ Provides opportunity for benchmark analysis of teacher’s targeted goals.
§ Provides opportunities for conversations with principals/teachers around professional
development needs.
§ Provides a comprehensive instrument that involves a process for teaching and
learning/formative purpose.
§ Provides important competencies, knowledge, and skills that principals/teachers
should possess.
Table 2 shows the respondents responses from the 31superintendents for each survey
question. There is significant agreement with all seven questions (SS1-SS3 and SS5-SS8).
However SS3, SS5 and SS7 expressed an average of 29.03% that ‘Somewhat Agreed’ and
17.20% that ‘Disagreed’ with the three questions that were tied to being held accountable to
high-stakes testing, benchmark analysis of teachers’ targeted goals and the teacher evaluation
system/tool informs teaching and learning.

Table 2
Survey Responses by Superintendents

SS1 SS2 SS3 SS5 SS6 SS7 SS8
Highly Agree 11 14 5 3 14 8 8
Agree 13 11 13 13 12 8 13
Somewhat Agree 6 6 8 8 5 11 9
Disagree 1 0 5 7 0 4 1
Total 31 31 31 31 31 31 31

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

51
The responses from the respondents were then used in a Frequency Distribution Scale for
a bird’s eye view of interval scores of respondent data. Table 3 shows the frequency distribution.
This visual representation shows the highest score that was made by the respondents was a 35
and the lowest score was 11 based on the four-point scale and the interval size was three. The
researcher concluded that more superintendents agreed with key components of the teacher
evaluation as noted by Darling-Hammond, Wise and Pease (1983) purpose for teacher
evaluations, Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott and Cravens (2009) core components as well as
Hallinger (2011) open system components. The frequency distribution in Table 3 provides a
visual representation of how individual superintendents scored on the survey. The cluster of
scores around the intervals 21-29 represents a mesocratic, bell-shaped curve showing the highest
score being 35 and the lowest score was nine. In comparing the scores, most respondents’ total
scores were between 58.33% and 80.55% which is significant agreement to the survey
statements.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Survey Results (N = 31, i = 3)
Class Interval F Cu
33-35 4 31
30-32 4 27
27-29 6 23
24-26 6 17
21-23 6 11
18-20 1 10
15-17 2 8
12-14 1 7
9-11 1 6

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

52
The survey responses from the superintendents that are aligned to research question one
are placed in Figure 5. The figure displays that the superintendents, on average, were in
agreement with key aspects of teacher evaluations and through the analysis of the researcher, the
evaluation system for teachers had two parts that emerged. The two parts were: 1) the actual tool
used for evaluation, and 2) the process that occurs cyclically throughout each year. Both tied to
the two overarching themes that structured the overall analysis which were the Traditional
Evaluation System and the Transformational Evaluation System.

Figure 5. Superintendent survey response average

2.9
2.65
3.29
2.39
2.58
3.26
3.13
8. Has competencies, knowledge, skills effective
teachers possess.
7. Provide comprehensive instrument for teaching
and learning.
6. Provides conversations around professional
development.
5.Provides opportunity for analysis of targeted
goals.
3. Helps hold accountable for high-stakes testing
2. Gives opportunity to engage in dialogue around
effective instruction.
1. Helps to support principals at the site with
teaching and learning.
Survey Statements
Superintendent Survey Response Averages
Average Rating (Out of 4.0)
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

53
Evaluation tool and process through the lens of quantitative analysis.
The following statements about the evaluation tool received at least a 2.71 out of 4.0
average rating from the 31 superintendents:
§ The teacher evaluation helps to hold teachers accountable to high-stakes testing.
§ The teacher evaluation provides a comprehensive instrument for teaching and
learning/formative purpose
§ The teacher evaluation has competencies, knowledge, and skills that teachers should
process.
Subsequently, superintendents highly agreed with the following statements about the
teacher evaluation process. The statements received 3.02 out of 4.0 average rates from
superintendents:
§ The teacher evaluation helps to support principals at the site.
§ The teacher evaluation system gives you an opportunity to engage in dialogue with
your principals/teachers around effective instructional practices.
§ The teacher evaluation system provides opportunity for benchmark analysis for
teacher’s targeted goals.
§ The teacher evaluation provides opportunities for conversations with
principals/teachers around professional development needs.
In addition to the survey questions, 10 superintendents and five principals were
interviewed and each interview was approximately 30 minutes. They were asked structured
questions about their district’s teacher evaluation system, the tool and its components. The
following questions were asked that address research question one:
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

54
§ What role did you, as superintendent (principal), have in the district determining the
components of the evaluation system for teachers?
§ Did the teachers, parents or community give input in the teacher evaluation tool?
§ Is there a component of the evaluation system that includes goal-setting and
professional development for the teacher being evaluated?
§ How do you determine teacher effectiveness with the teacher evaluation system/tool?
§ As the superintendent (principal), what degree of improvement in principal (teacher)
leadership that has spiraled down to classroom instruction and student growth that is
identified because of the evaluation system/tool?
§ What timeframes do you, as the superintendent (principal) discuss or review the
evaluation throughout the school year with your principals (teachers)?
A thorough comparative method, as a form of data analysis, was completed through the
lens of grounded theory (Creswell, 2009). A number of themes emerged from the analysis and
selective coding. Selective coding as defined by Merriam (2009) is a core category proposition,
or hypotheses are developed. Results were prepared, given identification and put through the
process of manipulation as described by Reid (1992) in Merriam (2009) as key to the
management of data. These are components of the tool and process used for evaluating teachers
that emerged from the analysis under the two primary themes of Traditional and the
Transformational teacher evaluation:
§ Teacher’s Union a part of the negotiation process for the components of the
evaluation
§ California Standards of the Teaching Profession (CSTP) is the building block of the
evaluation and its competencies for measuring teacher effectiveness
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

55
§ Rating scale used to measure effectiveness
§ Summary of evaluation is a part of the tool
§ Use of data as a part of the evaluation
§ Student learning as a part of teacher effectiveness rating
Figure 6 was derived from the analysis. The two key distinct categories that seemed to
resonate with the researcher throughout the participant interviews were the terms ‘Traditional’
and ‘Transformational’ with regards to how the participants described the evaluation systems
used within each district.
According to Wise et al. (1985), the evaluation should serve the individual teacher and
the organization through providing improvement in performance as well as accountability. For
example, in discussing the components of the teacher evaluation, with each superintendent and
principal, all respondents spoke of the tool as “being based on professional teaching standards”
stating that, “the competencies are what one would expect to see and does allow administration
to address issues around student performance.” Additionally, Superintendent 7 stated, “We
utilize the evaluation instrument as a measure, as a guide to determine whether or not people are
being effective in their position.”

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

56

Figure 6. Key components of the teacher evaluation based on the interviews with
superintendents and principals

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

57
Traditional evaluation tool and process through lens of qualitative analysis.
The ‘traditional’ tool used for evaluations contained CSTP, Time-line and a Rating Scale
for when the evaluation were to be completed as noted by one superintendent, “The evaluation
tool is based on the CSTP.” Superintendent 1 stated, “We largely looked at competences as
measured by the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.” However, it does not address
the student achievement, as stated by, Superintendent 2, “The gap I can see is the piece on
student performance which, in some ways, strikes me as a very common sense that student
outcome should be tied to one’s evaluation if one’s a teacher.”
The Time-line was another component of the traditional evaluation which would include
a once or twice per year evaluation if you were a probationary teacher. An evaluation could
occur once per year for some districts and then after every three years for other districts. In fact,
for other districts, evaluations would occur once every five years. Furthermore, with the
traditional evaluation, stated one principal, “Between October and March of the evaluating year
there is a pre-observation, the observation and then the post observation to reflect on the lesson
to ensure that the evaluation is completed 30 days before the school year ends.” The traditional
system of evaluating in districts were focused on competency of the teacher, in the past. Hence,
to adhere to the time-line, as one superintendent stated, “Somebody shows up in the classroom
and observes, says they thought it over, and they watched this one lesson, and then give their
conclusion in the teacher’s evaluation.” The evaluation was based on a time visit to meet the
time-line that was limited in its structure.
Additionally, the traditional tool in most cases had a three-four point rating (Meets
Standards, In Progress, Needs Improvement or Does Not Meet) which focused on teacher
competence as well as effectiveness but did not directly address student achievement. Principal 3
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

58
noted the traditional tool, “Has been around for such a long time that it does not really support
Common Core. Therefore, if we are asking teachers to teach Common Core then the teacher
evaluation tool also should address these components as well.” Another superintendent noted
that the traditional evaluation tool “was seen by teachers as a ‘gotcha’.” Therefore, such
approaches did not help to improve teacher effectiveness. Each Teacher evaluation from each
district provided a negotiated contract that outlined the procedures a sample is in Appendix F.
Transformational evaluation tool and process through qualitative lens.
The Transformational Evaluation Tool & Process likewise has CSTP, Time-Line and
Rating Scale as components of the teacher evaluation but Professional Development and
Collaboration materialized as the researcher analyzed the principal and superintendent interviews
as well as the evaluation documents. In most cases as the state of California public schools
transition toward the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school districts are making
revisions to their evaluations. Darling-Hammond, et al. (1983) iterated that over the last decade
the teacher evaluation has assumed increased importance. The interviewed participant
superintendents and principals noted, with great significance, the need to improve the evaluation
system for teachers and principals. Superintendent 1, “Most recently, the evaluation was revised
within the last couple of years.”
The CSTP are still a part of the focus of the evaluation tool of the Transformational
evaluation tool and process. However, as noted by Superintendent 9, “Classroom instruction was
the overarching factor.” Additionally, Superintendent 10 stated, “We ask our teachers to work
with principals on developing goals that are aligned with the CSTPs, which happen to then in
turn be aligned with what our instructional framework is in our district.”
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

59
Superintendent 1 stated, “We now largely look at competencies as measured by the
California Standards of the Teaching Profession. We were prohibited from using student
standardized test measures in the evaluation. We no longer are prohibited to do it.” Other
districts include other factors along with the CSTP. For example, a subsequent superintendent
noted,
…I wanted to be able to identify the things that were working in a non-threatening
manner to them [teacher]. Each of the professional teaching standards is listed and then
we also talked about the things that we were working on at the time, so for instance,
learning goals and objective that I wanted to see in every classroom.
In the Transformational evaluation, the Time-line is more detailed as noted by, Principal 2, who
stated,
Before, based on the contract, teachers had options of being evaluated one year or every
other within the first five years. Some teachers were evaluated every five years,
depending on expertise and years of service. But now, this year, they have got this set of
focus elements to discuss with the teachers each year.
Similarly, Superintendent 9 noted, “It’s not about waiting until March or April 15 date and say
okay, now it’s time for your evaluation. There are two observation cycles for teachers.” In the
same way, Superintendent 1 had an increased percentage of observations as noted, “We have
three points during the year of benchmark time where teachers and principals get to sit down and
look at data from classes, clusters of kids and what have you.” Similarly, Principal 3 stated,
“Evaluations need to be done by November 15 for the first round. Then the district gives us the
second round date for the final evaluation.” Principal 4 also stated an increase in the number of
observations. According to Principal 4, “The typical formal observation method and this is where
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

60
three formal observations are conducted throughout the year, in addition to the informal
observations.” Furthermore, Goal-Setting was included in the Time-line of the Transformational
evaluation tool. In addition, Superintendent 2 noted, “We are getting more authentic on-going
kinds of formative work. You start with goal-setting and some immediate observations and
feedback that’s formative during the year, before you sit down for that final evaluation.” One
principal and superintendent stated, “Goal setting with each teacher, individually. It is mutually
agreed upon goals that we ask our teacher to align to our instructional framework that we use in
our district along with the instructional model that we use.”
The Rating Scale for the Transformational evaluation tool has more than the three-four
scale rating. It had ratings that would help to increase teacher motivation and seek excellence in
effectiveness as well as in student achievement. The analysis of the evaluation documents
collected from the ten school districts was used to create the example scales. Table 4 provides an
example of the types of rating scales that surfaced through the researcher’s analysis.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

61
Table 4
Rating Scale Descriptions for Teacher Evaluations
Rating Scale 1
(Traditional)
Rating Scale 2 Rating Scale 3 Rating Scale 4 Rating Scale 5
Meets Standards Highly Effective Exceeds Standards Excellent –
Outstanding
Performance
Highly Effective
In Progress Effective Meets Standards Strong – Exceeds
Acceptable
Performance
Effective
Does Not Meet Needs
Improvement
Progress Evident Satisfactory – Meets
Acceptable
Performance
Developing
Unsatisfactory Progress Not
Evident
Needs Improvement –
Less Than Acceptable
Performance
Ineffective
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory –
Unacceptable
Performance

Does Not Apply

Subsequently the Rating Scale also measured Competency-Based, Outcome-Based or
both depending on the district. As the districts moved from the Traditional evaluation
tool/process to the Transformational evaluation tool/process more districts included a
competency and outcome-based measurement in their evaluation tool. During the interview
process the following Table 5 shows the number of districts that have a competency-based,
outcome-based or both (Competency and Outcome-Based) as noted by Danielson and McCrea
(2005) where they state that those responsible for teacher evaluations must consider formative
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

62
[competency-based] and summative [outcome-based] dimensions. As a result of the analysis, 1
of 10 districts had only a competency-based evaluation tool.

Table 5
Types of Teacher Evaluations: Competency-Based, Outcome-Based or Both
Superintendent Type of Evaluation Tool
Superintendent 1 Both
Superintendent 2 Competency-Based
Superintendent 3 Both
Superintendent 4 Both
Superintendent 5 Competency-Based
Superintendent 6 Both
Superintendent 7 Both
Superintendent 8 Both
Superintendent 9 Both
Superintendent 10 Both

There were two other components contained in the Transformational evaluation
tool/process that were not in the Traditional tool/process. The two components were Professional
Development and Collaboration. When questioning each principal and superintendent, fifteen
stated that there was a Professional Development component within their evaluation tool. As
noted by Superintendent 1, “We’ve really gotten away from traditional staff development.” With
NCLB, accountability was at the forefront with specific concerns about quality of classroom
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

63
teaching and teachers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2012). A visual display is shown in Table 6
where each district is represented; the superintendents from union and unified school districts.

Table 6
District Teacher Evaluations that Contain a Professional Development Component
District Evaluation Professional Development Teacher Specific
Document 1 Yes
Document 2 Yes
Document 3 Yes
Document 4 Yes
Document 5 Yes
Document 6 Yes
Document 7 Yes
Document 8 Yes
Document 9 Yes

Each district made the necessary adjustments with their evaluation tool to meet the
effectiveness of teachers through professional development as Superintendent 1 stated, “…we
know of particular staff development [Professional Development] needs of teachers, for instance,
Common Core or planning common core training for everybody.” Yet on an individual or site
basis Superintendent 1 adds, “…leading up to their evaluation, to form and structure their own
views on what they need.” The evaluation tool provides a component within its structure to
support teacher effectiveness. For example, Superintendent 2 provides a typical conversation
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

64
that would occur with teachers, “I’m seeing that you’re having some challenges with your
checking for understanding and making sure that you’re giving all students access. There’s a
workshop that I’d like you to attend…”
Additionally, this type of professional development is specific to teachers’ needs and
addresses teacher effectiveness. This is further confirmed in the comments by Superintendent 4,
“…the principal, or evaluator is going to help them [the teacher] get better by finding out what
they need and that was addressed first through coaching [professional development] then through
evaluation.” Another illustration of the role professional development plays within the
evaluation tool is with the response from Superintendent 8, “…if principals see that there’s
issues or concerns [with teacher’s effectiveness], they can at that point suggest professional
development or help, or support, to help; so that they [the principal] could come back and see a
lesson being redone.”
Collaboration being the other item that each district superintendent and principal stated
was a part of their Transformational evaluation tool. Superintendent 1 stated, “I’m very proud
that we negotiated, this year, to open up what we’re calling structured collaboration time. This
structured collaboration is between teacher and the principal to foster staff development
[Professional Development].” Another superintendent stated, “… it’s kind of a joint conversation
between the teacher and the principal, with the principal saying, ‘So, what can I do for you in
order to be able to support your growth as a teacher?’ in order to improve collaboration between
administration and teacher.” This level of collaboration between teacher and administrator was
prevalent during each of the interviews. For example, Superintendent 9 asserted that the teacher
evaluation cycle included an ongoing conversation, so that that the principal is not waiting until
it is close to March or the April 15 date to just do their evaluation of the teacher.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

65
Research Question Two: To What Extent Do Superintendents/Principals Believe the Key
Components of the Teacher Evaluation Results in Increased Student Achievement?
Superintendents answered survey questions regarding key components of the teacher
evaluation that result in increased student achievement. Respondents were given three statements
with regard to increased student achievement through the use of their evaluation tool. They were
asked to rate them 1-4. Each question was on a four point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(Disagree) to 4 (Highly Agree). There were 3 of 9 questions that addressed research question
two. The statements given on the survey were:
The teacher evaluation system/tool…
§ Helps you to hold your principals/teachers accountable to meeting high-stakes testing
goals.
§ Provides opportunity for benchmark analysis of teachers’ targeted goals.
§ Is working because student achievement levels have improved and teacher
effectiveness has increased.
The aforementioned statements are graphed in Table 7, which is separated by the Survey
Statement (SS) and the ratings that were given by all 31 superintendents. The researcher listed
each of the Likert–like scale ratings. The ratings were listed separately, so as to give accurate,
disaggregated data with the analysis. In the table there was significant agreement with two (SS3
and SS5) 51.6% of the three survey statements. Yet, survey statement SS9 expressed a 35.5%
agree or highly agree with the achievement levels improving based only due to the evaluation
system. SS9 had a significant percentage of superintendents that somewhat agreed with a rating
of 58.1%.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

66
Table 7
Survey Responses by Superintendents

SS3 SS5 SS9
Highly Agree 5 3 3
Agree 13 13 8
Somewhat Agree 8 8 18
Disagree 5 7 2
Total 31 31 31

The survey responses from the superintendents that are aligned to research question two
have been placed in Figure 7. The figure gives the average answer for superintendents separated
by individual survey statement. There was a significant average of superintendents that gave SS5
and SS9 an average of 2.39 out of 4.0. The significance is around the SS5 rating of 7 out of
31superintendents that disagreed with the statement of the teacher evaluation results in increased
student achievement. Additionally, eight superintendents rated “somewhat agree” with the
statement. These responses were significant to the research with regards to the research question
of student achievement.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

67

Figure 7. Superintendent survey response averages

Evaluation tool & process through the lens of quantitative analysis.
The following statements about the evaluation tool received at least a 2.39 out of 4.0
average rating from the 31 superintendents as moderately agreed:
§ The teacher evaluation system helps to hold your teachers accountable to meeting
high-stakes testing.
§ The teacher evaluation is working because student achievement levels have improved
and teacher effectiveness has increased.
Subsequently, superintendents moderately agreed with the following statements about the
teacher evaluation process. One statement received 2.58 out of 4.0 which reflected the average
agreement of the superintendents:
§ The teacher evaluation system helps to hold teachers accountable to meeting high-
stakes testing goals.
2.39
2.39
2.58
9. Is working because student achievement levels
have improved and teacher effectivenss has increased.
5. Provides opportunity for benchmark analysis of
teacher's targeted goals.
3. Helps you to hold your teachers accountable to
meeting high-stakes testing goals.
Superintendent Survey Response Averages
Average Rating (Out of 4)
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

68
Beside the survey statements, the following interview questions were asked that
addressed research question two:
§ What assessment tools/measures are being used to evaluate student growth, if any?
§ As the superintendent (principal), what degree of improvement in principal (teacher)
leadership that has spiraled down to classroom instruction and student growth that is
identified because of the teacher evaluation system?
These were the following components of the tool and process used for evaluating
teachers that emerged from the analysis under the two primary themes of Traditional versus
Transformational teacher evaluation:
§ Use of student growth to determine effectiveness of districts, schools and teachers
§ Increased student achievement – directly linked to perfected practice
§ Goals are set around student achievement in evaluations
§ Teacher evaluation is only a component of student achievement
§ High consideration for the student growth model
§ Conversations about student performance occurs throughout the school year
§ Data looked at from classes, individual students, school sites and as a district
§ Release time given to teachers to look at data (this includes with administration)
The components that are noted above are based on the percentage of superintendents and
principals who stated the need for these components and what was on the district teacher
evaluation document. The items listed above are from the Traditional evaluation and
predominantly from the Transformational teacher evaluation.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

69
Traditional evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative analysis.
The Traditional tool and process for the teacher evaluation did not address increased
student achievement directly in the evaluation but indirectly depending on the district. For
example, Superintendent 10 stated, “… we do a significant amount of work in the analysis of
student outcomes, achievement and are very intentional and thorough in data analysis throughout
the year… but it is not tied in any way to the traditional evaluation.” In fact, Principal 2 noted,
“…We have the standard tests given through the adoption that are given…. Teacher created
tests… The same tool has been in place ever since I came into the district.” Additionally,
Superintendent 2 stated, “… I don’t think the Evaluation System’s useful at all or very little for
student improvement.” Similarly, Superintendent 1 stated, “We do not have student data in the
evaluation yet although that conversation does underlie certain aspects of the California
Standards of the Teaching Profession.” Also, according to Superintendent 8, “…We do look at
our benchmark test…We cannot, through the contract, look at the results in their [teacher]
evaluation.”
Transformational evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative
analysis.
The Transformational Tool and Process for the teacher evaluation addresses student
achievement results in many ways. Superintendent 9 stated, “…evaluation document is
specifically laid out…. with growth individually and collectively. We’re talking about individual
markers of achievement and that achievement over time is our academic growth over time, and it
also addresses individual and school wide.” Superintendent 7 noted,
We use benchmark data in order to help support student achievement, but then they
[teachers] decide which standards they are looking at, what things are most important,
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

70
what things are less important, and then they come up with their own common
assessments, and then they share their children across grade levels and across subject
areas, based on their skill level. So it’s really targeting the learning to the individual
student.
Principal 2 stated,
... According to whatever level on the Rubric, the standards that it meets, you look at how
the students are growing because of the clear objectives that we had at the beginning of
the evaluation process. Whatever tools and whatever data measurements we’re using, we
just go back to that data to address the outcomes in a conversation with the teacher.
Superintendent 5 shows how student growth can be achieved in the teacher evaluation,
If I were to now look at sitting down with a 5
th
grade teacher, I’m going to say, here’s
what you inherited from 4
th
grade, here’s the 4
th
grade data, you’re going to have 17 kids
here that are below grade level in math; can you get that number to 10 by the first
benchmark? Then reflect that as a goal in the evaluation.
Superintendent 10 emphasizes that, “Based on this instructional model that we use, we try to
align our feedback to the model, so that it’s all aligned from the professional development, to the
walkthrough feedback, to the evaluation, to its connection to student achievement.”
Research Question Three: What Should a Teacher Evaluation System/Tool Include to
Improve Teacher Performance?
Superintendents answered survey questions regarding key components of the teacher
evaluation that resulted in improved teacher performance. Respondents were given three
statements with regard to improving teacher performance through the use of their evaluation tool.
They were asked to rate them 1-4. Each statement was on a four point Likert-type scale, ranging
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

71
from 1 (Disagree) to 4 (Highly Agree). There were 3 of 9 questions that addressed research
question three. The statements given on the survey were:
The teacher evaluation system…
§ Gives you an opportunity to engage in dialogue with your teachers around effective
instructional practices.
§ Helps to improve performance of the teacher at my site.
§ Is working because student achievement levels have improved and teacher
effectiveness has increased.
The abovementioned statements are shown in Table 8 and are separated by the Survey
Statement (SS) and the ratings that were given by all 31 superintendents. The researcher listed
each of the Likert–like scale ratings. The ratings were listed separately, as to give accurate,
disaggregated data with the analysis. From the table there was high agreement with two
statements from the survey: SS2- 80.6% (25 superintendents) and SS4- 70.0%
(21superintendents) “Agree” to “Highly Agree” as their responses to two of the statements. Yet,
survey statement SS9 expressed a 35.5% (11 superintendents) “Agree” or “Highly Agree” with
the improving teacher performance based only due to the evaluation system. SS9 had a
significant percentage of superintendents that “Somewhat Agree” with a rating of 58.1% (18
superintendents).

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

72
Table 8
Survey Responses by Superintendent

SS2 SS4 SS9
Highly Agree 14 6 3
Agree 11 15 8
Somewhat Agree 6 8 18
Disagree 0 1 2
Total 31 31 31

The survey responses from the superintendents that are aligned to research question three
have been placed in Figure 8. The figure gives the average answer for superintendents separated
by individual survey statement. There was a highly significant average of superintendents that
gave SS2 an average of 3.26 out of 4.0 regarding the evaluation, giving teachers and
administrators an opportunity to engage in dialogue around teacher effective instructional
practices. The average of superintendents that responded to SS4 was 2.87, which is above the
mean score. Additionally, superintendents showed a moderate response to SS9 an average of
2.39 out of 4.0.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

73

Figure 8. Superintendent survey response averages

Evaluation tool and process through the lens of quantitative analysis.
The following statements about the evaluation tool received at least a 2.39 out of 4.0
average rating from the 31 superintendents:
§ The teacher evaluation helps to improve performance of the teacher at my site.
§ The teacher evaluation is working because student achievement levels have improved
and teacher effectiveness has increased.
Additionally, superintendents highly agreed with the following statement about the
teacher evaluation process. The statement received 3.26 out of 4.0 average rating from
superintendent respondents:
§ The teacher evaluation gives me an opportunity to engage in dialogue with my
principals/teachers around effective instructional practices.
The following interview questions were asked to address research question three:
2.39
2.87
3.26
9. Is working because student achievement levels have
improved and teacher effectiveness has increased.
4. Helps to improve performance of the teacher at my
site.
2. Gives me an opportunity to engage in dialogue with
my principals/teachers around effective instructional
practices.
Superintendent Survey Response Averages
Average Rating (Out of 4)
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

74
§ How do you determine teacher effectiveness with the teacher evaluation system/tool?
§ As the superintendent (principal), what degree of improvement in principal (teacher)
leadership that has spiraled down to classroom instruction and student growth that is
identified because of the evaluation system?
Through the analysis, these are components of the tool and process used for evaluating
teachers that emerged from the two primary themes of Traditional versus Transformational
teacher evaluation:
§ Continuous observation, dialogue, and summary within the evaluation
§ Professional growth (goal setting) plan over time
§ Professional development plan – based on need
§ Structured collaboration between teacher and administrator
§ Statements about expectations, areas of improvement, and celebrate successes
§ Each evaluation supports teacher’s needs, strengths, deficits, and what administration
can do to support
§ Coaching
§ Self-imposed goals and a way of monitoring of progress (teacher driven)
§ Rating scale
§ Reflection
Traditional evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative analysis.
The Traditional tool and process for the teacher evaluation did address aspects of
improved teacher performance in the evaluation but to a minimal degree. As previously noted, all
superintendents agreed that the evaluation has a component in the evaluation that addresses
teacher performance improvement but it is limited. For example, Superintendent 10 stated, “…in
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

75
our former [Traditional] system we were aligned to CSTP but embedded components of the
current [Transformational] system.” Also, all nine of the evaluation documents had a component
for teacher performance improvement (See Sample in Appendix I). While the Traditional
evaluation tool has a component for teacher performance it is limited.
Transformational evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative
analysis.
The Transformational Tool & Process for the teacher evaluation addresses teacher
performance improvement. According to Superintendent 10, “… very specific goal setting
happens between principals and our teachers, and it is based on mutually agreed upon goals that
we ask our teachers to align to our instructional framework that we use in our district.” Whereas
another superintendent mentioned, “…There is goal setting opportunities for the teachers and
administrators.” While Principal 3 stated, “… sharing out with their team members to try things.
I really see that as being a tool for them [teachers]. They really look at it as something to learn
and grow from.” According to Principal 2, “If a teacher is ineffective and they want to be
highly effective, there’s are clear descriptors that outline what it takes to become highly effective
in the practice.” Subsequently, Principal 5 noted,
I first would get the standards of the teaching profession, I’ll have to look at student data,
and the actual lesson I’m observing, then my informal walkthroughs. All of that should
come back to students moving toward proficiency, but I really use that data to help
determine effectiveness of the teacher in addition to the student engagement strategies
that are being used by the teacher…. I look to see if it’s [evaluation process] improving
teacher performance, which is a direct result of student performance. If I have a teacher
that’s struggling and I’m providing feedback and using data and they still are not
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

76
progressing, it could be a problem with the evaluation system. I have seen improvement
in teachers through this [evaluation] process.
Superintendent 9 emphasizes that, “… It’s a very intensive and teacher-driven process.” There
was agreement from Superintendent 7,
… We utilize the evaluation instrument as a measure, as a guide to determine whether or
not people are being effective in their positions. We’ve grown actually from evaluation of
teachers, in terms of lesson observations and summary evaluations…. That was
something that has really helped us to identify areas that we could work on and things
that we’re doing well.
Furthermore, a superintendent said about the Transformational evaluation tool and process,
…in the summary document and also in the formative document, there’s a place for
reflections and that’s where we kind of use, given what we’ve seen, given the evidence,
having a joint conversation between the teacher and administrator. With administrator
saying, “How can I help”, but the bottom line is every administrator needs to be saying,
“So, what can I do for you in order to be able to support your growth as a teacher?”
Research Question Four: To What Degree are the Key Components of the Teacher
Evaluation Competency-based or Outcome-based?
Superintendents answered survey questions regarding whether components of the teacher
evaluation is competency-based or outcome-based. They were given two statements with regard
to components of the evaluation that are competency-based or outcome-based within their
evaluation tool. They were asked to rate them 1-4. Each statement was on a four point Likert-
type scale, ranging from 1 (Disagree) to 4 (Highly Agree). There were 2 of 9 statements that
addressed research question four. The statements given on the survey were:
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

77
The teacher evaluation system/tool…
§ Helps to improve performance of the teacher at your site.
§ Provides a comprehensive instrument that involves a process for teaching and
learning/formative purpose.
Table 9 displays the 31 superintendent responses to the abovementioned survey
statements. There was a significant rating of 70% which was 21 out of 31superintendents that
agreed or highly agreed that their evaluation tool and process includes either competency-based,
outcome-based or both. However, superintendents gave a rating of 35.5% which was 11 of 31
responses of agree or highly agree. Conversely, SS9 received a rating of 58.6% for somewhat
agreed to whether the evaluation was working based on the improved levels of student
achievement and increased teacher effectiveness.

Table 9
Survey Responses by Superintendent

SS4 SS9
Highly Agree 6 3
Agree 15 8
Somewhat Agree 8 18
Disagree 1 2
Total 31 31

The survey responses from the superintendents that are aligned to research question four
have been placed in Figure 9. The figure gives the average answer for superintendents separated
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

78
by individual survey statement. There was significant average of superintendents that gave SS4 a
rating average of 2.87 out of 4.0 and SS7 had an average of 2.65 out of 4.0. The significance is
around the SS4 rating of 21 out of 31superintendents that agreed or highly agreed with the
statement in terms of the degree to which the teacher evaluation was competency-based or
outcome-based tool/process. Additionally, 16 superintendents rated somewhat agree with SS7.
These responses were significant to the research with regards to the research question of
competency or outcome-based evaluation.

Figure 9. Superintendent survey response averages

Evaluation tool & process through the lens of quantitative analysis.
The following statements about the evaluation tool received at least 2.65 out of 4.0
averages rating from the 31 superintendents:
§ The teacher evaluation helps to improve performance of the teacher at the site.
§ The teacher evaluations provide a comprehensive instrument that involves process for
teaching and learning/formative process.
2.65
2.87
7. Provide a comprehensive instrument that invloves a
process for teaching and learning/formative process.
4. Help to improve performance of the teacher at my
site.
Superintendent Survey Response Averages
Average Rating (Out of 4.0)
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

79
The following interview questions were asked of each superintendent and principal participant
that addresses research question four:
§ In the developing of the evaluation system, would you say that it was outcome-based
or a competency-based evaluation? Both?
§ What timeframes do you as the superintendent (principal) discuss or review the
evaluation throughout the school year with the principal (teacher)?
These are the components of the tool and process used for evaluating teachers from the
analysis with the two primary themes of Traditional versus the Transformational teacher
evaluation:
§ Teacher evaluation is competency-based
§ Teacher evaluation is outcome-based
§ Teacher evaluation is both outcome and competency-based
§ Standardized test scores added to evaluation
§ District is prohibited from using test scores as a part of teacher evaluation per teacher
contract
§ Collaboration and observation makes the evaluation rich, valuable, and rewarding for
staff and students
§ Student results and performance results used but not directly listed on teacher
evaluation
§ Teacher evaluation becomes more critical when there is a need to document
deficiency (competency-based)
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

80
Traditional evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative analysis.
The Traditional tool and process for the teacher evaluation addressed the competency-
based evaluation but did not address the outcome-based evaluations. In this study, there were 2
of 10 districts that had a competency-based evaluation tool/process. According to Superintendent
2, “…results are not directly listed as one of the criterion for evaluation.” Many superintendents
agreed on the importance of an effective evaluation system/tool and had begun the process by
moving from the Traditional to the Transformational teacher evaluation as noted by
Superintendent 1, “its competency-based moving towards a more outcome based.” Along the
same lines, Superintendent 5 stated, “I would assume that that [moving from competency-based
to outcome-based] will transition by 2014-2015 or maybe 2015-2016 being more the latter
[outcome-based].”
Transformational evaluation tool and process through the lens of qualitative
analysis.
The transformational evaluation tool & process uses both outcome and competency-based
evaluation tool. Based on one superintendent that stated, “It’s both. It measures both process and
outcomes. But it’s a big fight that exists right now about whether or not teachers should be
evaluated based on student progress. I think that data on student achievement has always
informed our evaluation process.” According to Superintendent 7, “I think that outcomes
demonstrate competency.” Principal 2 acknowledged the transformational teacher evaluation in
the response to the interview question,
With outcome, teachers have an opportunity to reflect on the work based on evidence and
to be able to improve their practices. Then when you say competency, it’s the ability to
analyze. You see, teachers get really clear feedback after the next step to understand
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

81
whether or not they are competent because there’s a Rubric in which they’re [teachers]
are scored on whether or not they’re ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective
in their practices.
Summary of Results
This chapter presented the analysis of a closed-ended survey, as well as interviews with
both superintendents and principals and the analysis of the teacher evaluation documents from
the participant superintendents. The chapter was divided based on the four research questions
presented at the beginning of the chapter. Each section was presented with the quantitative
analysis using a Likert-type scale that presented the results of the 31 superintendent respondents.
In addition, the qualitative data from interviews was presented along with the document data
based on tables and quotes from the ten superintendents, five principals and nine documents.
Each section analyzed the quantitative and then the qualitative data through the lens of
the Traditional teacher evaluation tools and process as well as the Transformational teacher
evaluation tools and process. These two categories emerged from the selective coding along with
the two subcategories. Using a grounded theory, the researcher compared the Traditional teacher
evaluation with the Transformational teacher evaluation. The data was used to support the
comparisons that were made within each section.
The data clearly indicated that superintendents from high performing school districts had
key components of the teacher evaluation that improved teacher effectiveness and impacted
student achievement. Yet, there was a moderate few that believed that the evaluation tool was
not the silver bullet for improving effectiveness or achievement. The components included key
items that addressed the gap between teacher and administration. With the Transformational
evaluation tool and process there are more opportunities for structured collaboration, coaching
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

82
and evaluating practice, thoughtful and authentic dialogue between teacher and administration.
Davis et al. (2002) agree when they acknowledge that a model teacher evaluation system’s
components emphasize teacher and administrator collaboration, share a common voice, included
professional growth and self-assessment.
Additionally, the data showed that superintendents and principals believed that there are
key components of the teacher evaluation that results in increased student achievement.
However, the components were directly linked to the Transformational evaluation tool and
process versus the Traditional evaluation tool and process. These components included goals
being set around student achievement, release time to look at data and conversations about the
data are ongoing throughout the year.
Subsequently, the data revealed the need for professional growth plans over a period of
time, and that the Transformational evaluation supports teachers’ needs, strengths, and deficits.
The data also includes what the administrator could do to support teacher effectiveness. The
superintendents and principals were very thoughtful with regards to what was needed in the
evaluation tool and process that would improve teacher performance. Most superintendents were
willing to go to the negotiation table to address key components of the evaluation with the
teacher’s union, in order to make sure the components were included in the Transformational
evaluation tool and process.
Moreover, the data indicated that the superintendents were quite aware of the components
that were in their Traditional evaluation system/tool. A more competency-based evaluation
system/tool was evident based on the percentage of superintendents that have moved to a mix of
competency-based and an outcome-based evaluation tool and process. Accordingly, the
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

83
superintendents that did not have both competency and outcome-based were in the process of
transitioning to that type in the recent future.
These findings were presented in both narrative and table form. Further analysis of the
data is found in the following chapter.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

84
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Summary
Over the years in the United States, the K-12 public educational system has been under a
great deal of scrutiny around effective instructional practices of teachers and student
achievement. A Nation At Risk was one reform that addressed teacher effectiveness through the
quality of education that students received in public schools. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2002 was another reform movement aimed to improve student learning through teacher
effectiveness. NCLB focused on holding key stakeholders accountable for student academic
success. Nonetheless, measuring how effective teachers teach is a low priority in most states
(National Council on Teacher Quality, 2007). Evaluations are typically perfunctory compliance
exercises that rate all teachers but yield little useful information (The New Teacher Project,
2011).
Based in large part on school and district-wide standardized tests results, principals are
held to a greater degree of accountability for student learning through teacher effectiveness. This
greater accountability is evident by teacher evaluations provided through various forms over
various time intervals. For example, Sanders and Horn (1998) noted in a particularly interesting
circumstance of their research findings, that there was a 50 percentile point decline on
standardized tests of students that were taught by low quality teachers for three consecutive
years. Hence, the RTTT initiative and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
have rapidly forced assessment results to have a direct link to the evaluation of teacher quality.
Despite the overwhelming belief in principle, that teacher effectiveness is critical to
student achievement, the practice of accomplishing this effort continues to pose a serious
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

85
challenge with no simple solution in sight. With the call for more evidence of teacher
effectiveness assessments from local and national policymakers, and from a host of effective
school research, teacher evaluations are identified as a key ingredient in successful schools
(Johnson, 1992). Therefore, an attempt to improve the evaluation of teachers is urgent and
important.
It is imperative that the departments of education, school districts as well as site
principals and teachers have a clear vision, buy-in, as well as input from all the key stakeholders
in developing teacher evaluation tools. Additionally, there must be a system for implementation,
review, reflection, professional development and improvement of the evaluation tool. In order to
maintain highly qualified new and experienced teachers in every classroom to increase academic
achievement for all students to compete in the global economy, there must be an evaluation
system with a focus on effective instruction and annual student growth (Johnson, 1992; Oliva,
Mathers, & Laine, 2009).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to identify the key components of a teacher
evaluation system used by schools and districts in response to the demands for improved teacher
effectiveness and student achievement. As schools work toward meeting the higher standards of
the Common Core State Standards, linking teacher evaluation to measures of student learning is
the expectation. For example, states applying for the federal Race To The Top grant offered by
the Obama administration are required to include a teacher evaluation system in the states
application in order to receive the grant (Miles, 2012).
In recent years, policymakers have noted teacher evaluations as a primary lever for
improving schools. One of the most important and administrative responsibilities is the
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

86
evaluation of teachers. However, the teacher evaluation process is most neglected (McNally,
1977). School district superintendents and principals are held responsible for developing and
implementing effective teacher evaluation systems. With the heightened focus on reforms around
teacher effectiveness and student achievement, it is imperative to draw from the research that
helped illuminate key components of a teacher evaluation system that is vital to the success of a
district, principal, teacher and most of all, a student. According to Wise et al. (1985), the
evaluation should serve the individual teacher and the organization [district and school] through
providing improvement in performance as well as accountability.
The research questions that were created served to guide the focus of the study. They
allowed the researcher to better expand upon the information surrounding the strategies
discovered within each district’s teacher evaluation system/tool. Through the research questions,
the researcher was able to identify clear objectives to ensure a focused study. In order to examine
key components of an effective evaluation system, the following research questions were
developed:
1. What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high performing school
districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement?
2. To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the
teacher evaluation results in increased student achievement?
3. What should a teacher evaluation system/tool include to improve teacher performance?
4. To what degree are the key components of the teacher evaluation competency-based
and/or outcome-based?
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

87
Methodology
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study and was conducted with
superintendents and principal, identifying the key components of the teacher evaluation
system/tool that lead to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. The quantitative data was
collected through an online survey. An instrument was specifically designed for this study. The
survey was sent to 60 superintendents who had been in their districts at least one year and met
their Academic Performance Index (API) for three consecutive years for a minimum of 50% of
the schools in their district.
The survey consisted of questions directly linked to the four research questions using a
four point Likert-type scale. The conceptual frameworks from Darling-Hammond et al. (1983),
Goldring et al. (2009), and Hallinger (2011) served as a lens by which the research questions
were formulated. These frameworks focused on the need for an effective teacher evaluation,
effective leadership from administration and the key to successful outcomes in student
achievement.
Superintendents that responded to the survey were asked if they would be willing to
participate in an interview. Of the 20 superintendents that agreed to be interviewed, ten
superintendents were randomly selected and interviewed. There were two female superintendents
and eight male superintendent participants. Five of the ten superintendents had more than 10
years of superintendent experience. Of the ten superintendent interviews, five principals were
also selected for interviews. Additionally, teacher evaluation documents were collected and
analyzed. The interviews and collection of documents lead to a very comprehensive list of key
components needed in a teacher evaluation system.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

88
Data Collection
Each of the 60 superintendents was sent a letter through the US Postal Services
requesting their participation in an anonymous online survey for the quantitative data collection
on July 24, 2013. The letter consisted of an introduction and a request to participate in the survey
with a link for them to go to in order to complete the survey. On September 2, 2013 a postcard
was mailed to each of the 60 superintendents. Of the 60 surveys requested, 31superintendents
completed the survey. One question on the survey asked if they would be willing to participate in
an interview. From the 31survey respondents, ten superintendents were interviewed and five
principals from five of the districts were interviewed to address the actual use of the teacher
evaluation and add validity to the findings.
Key Findings
In the discussion below, key findings from the data presented in chapter four are
discussed, in order, by research question, and as it relates to the literature.
Research Question One: What are Key Components of the Teacher Evaluation Used in
High Performing School Districts that Improve Teacher Effectiveness and Impact Student
Achievement?
The data was analyzed through the lens of the Traditional teacher evaluation tools and
process as well as the Transformational teacher evaluation tools and process. These two
categories emerged from the selective coding along with the two subcategories. Using a
grounded theory, as noted by Creswell (2009), grounded theory is a strategy of inquiry in which
the researcher derives a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in
the views of the participants. The researcher compared the Traditional teacher evaluation with
the Transformational teacher evaluation. The Traditional teacher evaluation, as described by
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

89
Danielson and McGreal (2005), consisted of rating scales and checklists that accompanied the
evaluation criteria which promoted a summative [competency-based] evaluation but was not
effective. Conversely, the Transformational teacher evaluation according to Wise et al. (1985)
should serve the individual teacher and the organization through providing improvement in
performance as well as accountability [student achievement].
The data was used to support the comparisons that were made between the Traditional
teacher evaluation and the Transformational teacher evaluation. The surveys, interviews and
document analyses clearly indicated that superintendents from high performing school districts
had key component of the teacher evaluation that improved teacher effectiveness and impacted
student achievement. According to Davis, Ellett, and Annunziata (2002), school-based
administrative and professional leadership play essential roles in determining the meaning of and
value of teacher evaluation in schools, and how the teacher evaluation can improve teaching and
learning. The Transformational teacher evaluation key components, to address teacher
improvement and student achievement are as follows:
§ Teacher needs to be a part of the dialogue leading up to the evaluation;
§ Structured collaboration time between administrator and teacher;
§ More coaching and evaluation about practice;
§ Setting goals – teacher (self-imposed);
§ Use of data as a part of the evaluation;
§ Rubric scale to measure effectiveness;
§ Meeting with administrator 2-3 times per year after benchmark assessments/data
§ Student learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

90
These components of the teacher evaluation included key items that addressed the gap
between teacher and administration when completing the evaluation process for teachers. As the
two categories emerged from the quantitative and qualitative analysis with the Transformational
evaluation tool and process there were more opportunities for structured collaboration, coaching
and evaluating practice, thoughtful and authentic dialogue between teacher and administration.
Davis et al. (2002) acknowledge that a model teacher evaluation system’s components
emphasize teacher and administrator collaboration, share a common voice, included professional
growth and self-assessment. Yet, there was a moderate few that believed that the evaluation tool
was not the silver bullet to improvement in effectiveness or achievement.
Research Question Two: To What Extent do Superintendents and Principals Believe the
Key Components of the Teacher Evaluation Results in Increased Student Achievement?
Milanowski et al. (2005) stated that if we believe that quality instruction makes a
difference, then it requires an accurate and reliable system of measuring instructional behavior
and evidence that the behavior we hold teachers accountable for is related to student learning.
The data showed that superintendents and principals believed that there are key components of
the teacher evaluation that results in increased student achievement. However, the components
were directly linked to the Transformational evaluation tool and process versus the Traditional
evaluation tool and process. These components included:
§ Goals being set around student achievement;
§ Release time to look at data with administration
§ Conversations about student performance (data) occurs throughout the school year;
§ Data is looked at by classes, individual students, school sites and as a district
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

91
Research Question Three: What Should a Teacher Evaluation System/Tool Include to
Improve Teacher Performance?
According to Duke (1990) the two primary purposes for teacher evaluations are
accountability and professional growth. The data revealed the need for professional growth plans
over a period of time, and that the Transformational evaluation supported teachers’ needs,
strengths, deficits and what the administrator can do to support effectiveness. Additionally, the
superintendents and principals were very thoughtful with regards to what was needed in the
evaluation tool and process that would improve teacher performance. Moreover, the data showed
that most superintendents were willing to go to the negotiation table to address this with the
teachers’ union in order to make sure these key components of the evaluation were included in
the Transformational evaluation tool and process:
§ Continuous observation, dialogue and summary within the evaluation;
§ Professional growth (goal setting) plan over time;
§ Professional development plan – based on need;
§ Coaching;
§ Self-imposed goals and a way of monitoring and progress (teacher driven);
§ Evaluation supports teacher’s needs, strengths, deficits and what administration can
do as a support;
§ Reflection
In fact, Davis et al. (2002) reveal that a model teacher evaluation system’s components
emphasize teacher and administrator collaboration, share a common voice, professional growth,
and a practice of self-assessment.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

92
Research Question Four: To What Degree are the Key Components of the Teacher
Evaluation Competency-based and/or Outcome-based?
The data dovetails with The Reform Support Network (2012) and Darling-Hammond et
al.’s (2012) premise that changes have to be made to their [district] evaluation systems to
incorporate multiple measures of teacher effectiveness and student performance information. The
data indicated that the superintendents were quite aware of what components were in their
Traditional evaluation. The components of the evaluation system were evidence based on the
percentage of superintendents that have a competency-based and an outcome-based evaluation
tool and process. Moreover, the superintendents that did not have both competency and outcome-
based were in the process of transitioning to that type in the recent future.
Limitations
This research was based on superintendent participants. The data shows that the
superintendent tenure in a district is three years. Unfortunately, there were superintendents that
were no longer in their position at the site where I made the request. Additionally, the
superintendent may have retired or been in the process of transitioning out of the district where I
had made the request.
Implications for Practice
The research data on the key components of the teacher evaluation systems provided very
detailed and explicit components that directly impact teacher effectiveness and student
achievement through the use of a Transformational evaluation tool and process. In fact, the
process and tool should be used throughout the year with higher levels of personalized
interaction and resource exchange between administration and teachers. Danielson and McGreal
(2005) emphasize the move from the traditional evaluation of classroom observation and follow-
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

93
up to a more transforming practice of evaluating teachers through peer and administration
helping teachers reflect on their instruction or giving teachers options for peer coaching,
conducting action research projects, portfolios, or self-directed professional development.
The current findings gave insight into the components that change the attitude of teachers
regarding the evaluation process when it entails the use of the CSTP, effective rating scales,
collaboration between teacher and administrator, self-assessment, goal setting, administrative
coaching and supporting teacher effectiveness. Specifically, the study provided a tool that is
competency-based and outcome-based where student data is embedded in benchmark
conversations with administration.
The use of improvement and professional development to focus on teacher efficacy
facilitates a change in culture and communication, wherein internal teacher knowledge and skill
enhancement recommendations are perceived as true intentions and value, and not the imposition
of rules of behavior. Davis et al. (2002), acknowledged that if the evaluation system is to be
effective that there has to be an integration of: 1) new conception of school leadership that
fosters supportive cultures and a learning organization, 2) reflective professional practice by
educators that is linked to actual practice, radical shift in leadership style, and 3) leadership
develops relationships.
The research was presented from a grounded theory based solely on the data collected
(Creswell, 2009). As a result, higher levels of personalized interaction were noted and should
occur between teacher and administration. In fact, teachers’ perceptions about the evaluation tool
and process are not just linked to sanctions or deficits but linked to teacher effectiveness,
reflection, goal setting, coaching and collaboration between teacher and administration being key
to Transformational teacher evaluations.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

94
Recommendations for Future Research
Although the study was well designed, and had clear and specific findings, within
California, additional research is warranted for a large scale study that would include other states
with similar districts to compare Traditional teacher evaluation components with
Transformational teacher evaluation components of the tool and process. The following
suggestions are for future research:
§ Further research should include teachers in the study to heighten the degree of
validity for the findings
§ Increase the number of principals that are participants in the study to increase the
scale and depth of the researcher’s findings
§ When interviewing participants, ask more open-ended questions so as to increase the
degree of qualitative responses around the process of evaluating teachers
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the key components of the teacher evaluation
system that would lead to improved teacher effectiveness and increased student achievement in
K-12 urban public schools. The research revealed that superintendents from urban high
performing school districts had key components of the teacher evaluation that improved teacher
effectiveness and impacted student achievement through the use of a teacher evaluation process,
and the actual evaluation tool that is transformational. The components of the transformational
approach successfully addressed the negative thoughts that historically existed between teacher
and administration around the teacher evaluation process. With the transition to Common Core
State Standards, superintendents over urban school districts have to ensure that the evaluation
improves teacher performance, identifies deficiencies, encourages coaching, requires
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

95
collaborating, uses student data and highlights teacher successes. The research in this study
suggests that the Transformational approach for evaluating teacher performance can increase
student achievement through the enhancement of teacher effectiveness.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

96
References
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Leading with soul. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danielson, C. (2012). It’s your evaluation – Collaborating to improve teacher practice. The
Education Digest, 77(8), pp. 22-27.
Danielson, C. & McCrea, T.L. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: To Enhance Professional Practice.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating
teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Pease, S.R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the
organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3),
285-328.
Davis, D.R., Ellett, C.D., & Annunziata, J. (2002). Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning
organizations. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 287-301.
Donaldson, M.L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform. Center for American
Progress, 1-5.
Duke, D.L. (1990). Developing teacher evaluation systems that promote professional growth.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 131-144.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

97
Forner, M., Bierlein-Palmer, L., & Reeves, P. (2012). Leadership practices of effective rural
superintendents: Connections to Waters and Marzano’s leadership correlates. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 27(8), pp. 1-13.
Gallup, G.H. (1979). The eleventh annual Gallup poll of the public’s attitude toward the public
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 34-45.
Goldring, E., Cravens, X.C., Murphy, J., Porter, A.C., Elliott, S.N., Carson, V. (2009). The
evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership?
The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on
subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), pp.
106-136.
Johnson, J.K. (1992). Performance-based teacher evaluations: A necessary component for
effective schools. Contemporary Education, 63(2), p.142
Kersten, T.A. & Israel, M.S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: principals’’ insight and suggestions for
improvement. Planning and Changing, 36, (1), (2), 47-67.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2012). Teacher effects past, present, and future. In Kelly, S. (Ed.).
Assessing teacher quality (pp. 33-48). Denver, MA: Teachers College Press.
Kurpius, S.E. & Stafford, M.E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

98
Kyriakides, L. & Demetriou, D. (2007). Introducing a teacher evaluation system based on
teacher effectiveness research: An investigation of stakeholders’ perceptions. Springer
Science, 20, 43-64. doi: 10.1007/s11092-007-9046-3.
Leithwood, K, Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Marks, H.M., & Nance, J.P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform:
Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37.
Marzano, R.J. & Toth, M.D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
McNally, H. J. (1977). Performance-based teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 61(104).
Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, K. (2012, October 30). LA loses $40 million of race to the top funds because of teacher’s
union resistance to evaluation. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http:www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/la-race-to-the-top-40-million-teachers-union.
Milanowski, A.T., Kimball, S.M., & Odden, A. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and
links to learning. American Educational Finance and Association Yearbook: Measuring
school performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research. 1-37.
McGreal, T.L. (1983). Successful Teacher Evaluation. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

99
Oliva, M., Mathers, C, & Laine, S. (2009). Effective evaluation. Principal Leadership, 9(7), p.
16.
Patton, M.Q., (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3
rd
edition. Sage Publications,
Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
President Obama administration education reform plan emphasizes flexibility, resources,
accountability for results. (2010, Mar 16). US Fed News Service, Including US State News.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/471819773.
Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide To New Directions and
Practice. (2), Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Peterson, K. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. National Association of Secondary
School Principals, 88, 60-79.
Peterson, D. & Peterson, K. (1984). A research-based approach to teacher evaluation. National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 68, 39-46.
Popham, W.J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher
evaluation. Journal of personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 269-273.
Reid, A.O. Jr. (1992). Computer management strategies for text data. In B.F. Crabtree & W.L.
Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 125-145). London: Sage
Roulston, K. (2007). In Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative Research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sanders, S.A. & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value added assessment
system database: implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3). Pp. 247-56.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

100
Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. Research report, University of Tennessee Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center, Knoxville.
Sawchuk, S. (2010). Teacher evaluation. Education Week, 30(7), 5. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/759746561.
Stanley, S.J. & Popham, W.J. (1988). Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions for Success.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
State Teacher Policy Yearbook, National Summary, 2007. Washington, DC: National Council on
Teacher Quality, 92.
Stronge, J.H. (1991). The dynamics of effective performance evaluation systems in education:
Conceptual, human relations, and technical domains. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 5, 77-83.
Sullivan, K.A. & Zirkel, P.A. (1999). Documentation in teacher evaluation: What does the
professional literature say? National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP
Bulletin, 83(607), 48-58.
Toch, T. & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education.
education sector reports. Education Sector.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continental Regional
Educational Lab. Aurora, CO, (pp. 1-19).
Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M.W., & Bernstein, H.T. (1985). Teacher
evaluation: A study of effective practices. The Elementary School Journal, 86(1), 60-125.
TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

101
Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

102
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY
Please respond using the scale 1 – 4, 1 being the lowest degree of agreement and 4 being the
highest degree of agreement.

The evaluation system. . .
1. Helps you to support principals at the school site.
1 2 3 4

2. Gives you opportunity to engage in dialogue with your principals/teachers around
effective practices.
1 2 3 4

3. Helps you to hold your principals/teachers accountable to meeting high-stakes tests goals.
1 2 3 4

4. Help to improve performance of the principals/teacher at their sites.
1 2 3 4

5. Provides opportunity for benchmark analysis of teacher’s targeted goals.
1 2 3 4

6. Provide opportunities for conversations with principals/teachers around professional
development around leadership.
1 2 3 4

7. Provide a comprehensive instrument that is a process for teaching and learning.
1 2 3 4

8. Provide important competencies, knowledge, and skills that principals/teachers should
possess.
1 2 3 4

9. Provide a cookie cutter approach to implementing the evaluation system with
principals/teachers.
1 2 3 4

10. Is working because student achievement levels have improved.
1 2 3 4

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

103
APPENDIX B
SUPERINTENDENT/PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
This interview protocol is for the Superintendents/Principals of the Districts/schools that use an
Evaluation System for teachers in the state of California.

1. What role did you, as a superintendent (principal), have in the district determining the
components of the evaluation system for teachers?
2. Did the teachers, parents or community give input in the teacher evaluation tool?
Evaluation System?
3. To what degree of input were you, the superintendent/principal, involved in the process
of establishing the evaluation system? Tool?
4. In developing the evaluation system would you say that it was outcome-based or
competency-based evaluation? Both?
5. Is there a component of the evaluation system that includes goal setting and professional
development for the teacher being evaluated?
6. How do you determine teacher effectiveness with the teacher evaluation system? Tool?
7. How are you, as the superintendent (principal), evaluating the validity of the evaluation
system?
8. What assessment tools/measures are being used to evaluate student growth, if any?
9. As the superintendent (principal), what degree of improvement in principal (teacher)
leadership that has spiraled down to classroom instruction and student growth that is
identified because of the evaluation system?
10. What timeframes do you as the superintendent/principal discuss or review the evaluation
throughout the school year with the principal/teacher?

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

104
APPENDIX C
LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
July 24, 2013

Dear (Superintendent Name),

I am currently a doctoral student working on my dissertation. I am pursuing an Ed.D. degree in
K-12 leadership under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita, at the University of Southern
California in the Rossier School of Education. Based on your success at implementing a teacher
evaluation system within your district, I invite you to participate in my research study. This study
seeks to identify the key components of an evaluation system/tool that positively impact teacher
effectiveness and student learning.

I understand your time is extremely valuable and limited as a leader, and if it would be possible
for you to assist me with my research, please click on the enclosed link to fill out the survey. The
survey will take approximately ten minutes. Your voluntary participation is much appreciated
and would provide an important contribution to the research on teacher evaluation systems/tools
aimed at improving teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research. The IRB ensures that the
research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and rights. Please
be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and anonymous. In no
way will any data be presented in any manner where any individual can be identified. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at 951-201-2963 or ttwalker@usc.edu.

Please kindly copy the following link to your search engine to take the survey at your earliest
convenience: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BKV2ZYL

Thank you very much for your time and kind assistance.

Sincerely,

Terry T. Walker, M.Ed.
Doctoral Candidate

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

105
APPENDIX D
FRIENDLY REMINDER POST CARD TO PARTICIPANTS
Friendly Reminder
Dear Superintendent,

I understand your time is extremely valuable and limited as a leader. I would greatly appreciate
your assistance. Please copy the link below to complete this 3-5 minute survey. Your voluntary
participation will contribute to the research on teacher evaluations aimed at improving teacher
effectiveness and student acheivement.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BKV2ZYL

Thank you very much for your time and kind assistance.

Sincerely,

Terry T. Walker, M.Ed.
Doctoral Candidate USC

TEACHER EVALUATION: KEY COMPONENTS

106
APPENDIX E
SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW COVER LETTER/EMAIL
September 10, 2013

Dear [Superintendent/Principal Name],

My name is Terry Walker. Thank you for completing my survey on teacher evaluations. I send
this email as a follow-up to your willingness to participate in a 30 minute interview with me a
doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California
under the direction of Dr. Rudy Castruita as my dissertation chair. My study focuses on the key
components of the teacher evaluation that improves teacher effectiveness and student
achievement. Thank you for your willingness to participate in a 30 minute interview.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity will remain confidential at all
times. Your relationship with USC will not be affected whether or not you participate in this
study.

Our interview has been scheduled to take place at your office on __________ at __________.
(date) (time)

Attached you will find a list of questions we will cover during the interview. If you have any
questions, please contact me via email or phone: [Terry Walker] ttwalker@usc.edu (951) 201-
2963

Thank you for your participation,

Terry Walker
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the key components of a teacher evaluation system used by schools and districts in response to the demands for improved teacher effectiveness and student achievement. As schools work toward meeting the higher standards of the Common Core State Standards, finding key components of the teacher evaluation that improves teacher effectiveness and increases student learning was the objective of this study. Hence, the following questions were responded to: 1) What are key components of the teacher evaluation used in high performing school districts that improve teacher effectiveness and impact student achievement? 2) To what extent do superintendents and principals believe the key components of the teacher evaluation results in increased student achievement? 3) What should a teacher evaluation system/tool include to improve teacher performance? and 4) To what degree are the key components of the teacher evaluation competency-based and/or outcome-based? A mixed‐methods approach was implemented and 31 urban district superintendents, in six counties within Southern California completed a survey. From this pool, 10 superintendents and 5 principals were selected and participated in a semi‐structured interview. Additionally, the 10 interviewed superintendents provided their teacher evaluation documents that were analyzed as a part of the document review. The study's findings indicate that school districts within urban communities that improved teacher effectiveness and increased student achievement over a three‐year period, based on API results, implemented the following key components in their teacher evaluation system/tool: A personalized interaction between administration and teachers, professional development specific to teacher needs, an effective rating scale to motivate improvement, collaboration between teacher and administrator, twice‐a‐year self-assessments, goal setting, administrative coaching, two-three formal observations with effective and timely feedback and support. Additionally, the superintendents ultimately made a concerted effort to ensure an evaluation system that is competency and outcome‐based to achieve teacher effectiveness that leads to the outcome of increased student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra

Asset Metadata

Creator Walker, Terry T. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/10/2014

Defense Date 04/09/2014

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

Tag effective teacher evaluation components,OAI-PMH Harvest,outcome and competency-based evaluations,teacher effectiveness,teacher evaluation and student achievement,teacher evaluations,transformational evaluation tool

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Ott, Maria G. (committee member)

Creator Email ttwalker@usc.edu,ttwedu@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-374770

Unique identifier UC11295346

Identifier etd-WalkerTerr-2336.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-374770 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WalkerTerr-2336.pdf

Dmrecord 374770

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Walker, Terry T.

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