University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effective school practices that facilitate improved student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Effective school practices that facilitate improved student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EFFECTIVE SCHOOL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE
IMPROVED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Peggy Gutierrez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2006
Copyright 2006 Peggy Gutierrez
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3236504
Copyright 2006 by
Gutierrez, Peggy
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3236504
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to Mom and Dad, and to God, without whom I
would never have had the strength or the will to even start this endeavor. Their
support and encouragement have helped me to achieve success beyond my
expectations. I love them so much and celebrate each day we spend together!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank all of the people who have supported me, inspired me, guided me,
and loved me throughout this process. Without these people, this dissertation would
not have been possible: Arturo Gutierrez and Peggy Gutierrez, Ernesto and Teresa
Gutierrez, Dr. Sheryl Ross, Terese Toomey, Susannah Gutierrez, Veronica
Gutierrez, Polita Dart, Arturo J. Gutierrez, Nicole Brockman, Allison Gutierrez,
Scott Gutierrez, Adrienne Pappas, Michael Becker, Stephen Becker, Jonathan
Becker, Dr. Stuart Gothold, Dr. Richard Clark, Judy Dale Torres, Elizabeth
Kenney, Janet Jordan, Dr. Daniel Hacking, Dr. Guermina Jauregui, Dr. Ronald
Alatorre, and Stevie Nicks.
1 1 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1
Background for the Study...................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study...........................................................................................7
Research Questions.............................................................................................8
Importance of the Study......................................................................................8
Methodology....................................................................................................... 9
Limitations of the Study......................................................................................9
Delimitations of the Study................................................................................10
Assumptions...................................................................................................... 10
Definitions of Terms......................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Dissertation...................................................................... 16
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................18
Educational Reform.......................................................................................... 18
Standards-Based Reform...........................................................................23
Teaching Standards.................................................................................... 24
Modem Reform Efforts.............................................................................. 26
Accountability Movement.........................................................................27
Brief History of Evaluation.............................................................................. 31
Models of Teacher Evaluation.........................................................................33
The Stull Evaluation.................................................................................. 33
Portfolios..................................................................................................... 36
Peer Assistance and Review......................................................................38
Summative and Formative Evaluations.......................................................... 40
Summative Evaluation............................................................................... 40
Formative Evaluation................................................................................. 41
Effective Schools..............................................................................................42
Teacher Quality...........................................................................................44
Professional Development.........................................................................46
Culture/Climate...........................................................................................48
Leadership...................................................................................................49
Criticisms of Teacher Evaluation.....................................................................53
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 55
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 57
Research Questions...........................................................................................57
Research Design................................................................................................59
Conceptual Model.............................................................................................65
Figure 1: Conceptual model for the study.....................................................66
Sample and Population.................................................................................... 66
School Site Selection Criteria............................................... 67
Instrumentation................................................................................................. 68
Interviews....................................................................................................68
Review of Documents ........................................................................69
Observational Survey................................................................................. 70
Teacher Evaluation Survey........................................................................70
Results for the Research Questions..................................................................74
Research Question 1 .................................................................................. 74
Research Question 2 .................................................................................. 75
Research Question 3 .................................................................................. 76
Research Question 4 .................................................................................. 76
Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 77
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 78
Chapter 4: FINDINGS..............................................................................................79
Neighborhood/Community.............................................................................. 81
Campus..............................................................................................................82
Socioeconomic Status of Attending Students.................................................82
Transportation................................................................................................... 83
Students..............................................................................................................84
Climate...............................................................................................................86
Teacher Collaboration.......................................................................................89
Findings by Research Questions......................................................................90
Research Question 1: The Evaluation Process..........................................90
Research Question 2: Impact on Teacher Behavior................................. 97
Research Question 3: Factors Impacting Teacher Practice....................100
Communication of Appreciation....................................................... 101
Structured Discipline Plan.................................................................103
School-Wide Expectations.................................................................105
School-Wide Writing......................................................................... 106
Vision.................................................................................................. 107
Common Instructional Tools.............................................................108
Frequent Informal Classroom Observations.....................................109
Professional Development.................................................................I l l
Negative Practices...............................................................................114
Research Question 4: Contributions by Site Leadership.......................116
Leadership Frames..........................................................................................121
Structural Frame........................................................................................121
Human Resource Frame........................................................................... 122
Political Frame..........................................................................................123
Symbolic Frame........................................................................................123
Emergent Themes...........................................................................................124
Theme I: Leadership.................................................................................124
Theme II: A Culture of Learning.............................................................125
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Theme III: Collaboration......................................................................... 126
Discussion of Findings....................................................................................126
Research Question 1: The Evaluation Process........................................127
Research Question 2: Impact of Evaluation Process on
T eacher Behavior................................................................................128
Research Question 3: Factors Affecting Teaching Practice..................129
Research Question 4: Contributions by Leadership............................... 131
C hapters: SUMMARY..........................................................................................133
Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 133
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................133
Research Questions.........................................................................................134
Methodology................................................................................................... 134
Sample and Population...................................................................................135
Conclusions..................................................................................................... 135
Recommendations...........................................................................................136
Implications............................................................................................... 136
Implications for Administrators and Teachers..................................137
Implications for Other Stakeholders................................................. 137
Recommendations for Future Study....................................................... 138
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................140
APPENDICES
A. INFORMATIONAL CONTACT SHEET................................................150
B. CONSENT FORM......................................................................................151
C. TEACHER EVALUATION SURVEY..................................................... 154
D. TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS..................................................157
E. SITE ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.........................159
F. OBSERVATION SURVEY.......................................................................160
G. DOCUMENT REVIEW TEMPLATE...................................................... 161
H. TEACHER EVALUATION SURVEY RESULTS................................. 163
I. OBSERVATION SURVEY RESULTS................................................... 164
J. EVALUATEE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AGREEMENT............... 165
K. CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL
EVALUATION..........................................................................................169
L. SNICKS MIDDLE SCHOOL INFORMAL CLASSROOM
OBSERVATION FORM...........................................................................171
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Data of the Students in the Participating School............... 67
Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix of Perceptions of Evaluation and
Supervision of Instruction ..........................................................................72
Table 3: Results for the Sample Research Questions...............................................73
Table 4: Teacher Interviewees Categorized by Years of Service and
Subj ect Area T aught.....................................................................................81
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Urban schools across the United States are confronted with various chal
lenges, one of which is teacher evaluation and its impact on student achievement.
This study investigated the impact of teacher evaluation on improved student
achievement. Qualitative case study research methods were used to achieve an in-
depth analysis. The study focused on a single middle school in an urban California
school district. Snicks Middle School was selected because it was a high-achieving
school with a minimum of 40% of the students participating in a free/reduced-price
lunch program, and it had met its state targets for 2 consecutive years.
Four research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. How is the evaluation process practiced at the school site?
2. How does the teacher evaluation process impact teacher behavior?
3. What factors exist at the school that positively or negatively impact
teacher practice?
4. How does the site leadership team contribute to improved teacher
practice?
Three major findings emerged from the study. First, a teacher evaluation
system must be created that includes both summative and formative components.
Second, teachers in this study did not feel that the present teacher evaluation
system in place had an impact on student achievement but identified other factors,
such as climate, leadership, collaboration, and vision. Third, strong leadership is
essential for creating an environment schools that schools need to be successful.
The study examined teacher evaluation and its impact on teacher practice.
Although the teacher evaluation process was not a dominant feature in this school’s
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
success, nor did it impact teacher practices, it served as an indication to discuss
improvement of the teacher evaluation policy and implementation. The results of
this case study suggest two recommendations for future study. First, it should be
determined whether there is a correlation between student achievement and teacher
performance as reflected on teacher evaluation. Second, future research should be
conducted to identify factors that impact teacher practice at other high-achieving
schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background for the Study
Within the past decade the need for increased accountability has become the
focus of the nation’s public and private school systems. Students are not perform
ing at the standards that society expects for a leading industrialized nation. The
federal legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a result of a concerned country
that produces lower academic scores in comparison to other countries worldwide.
The NCLB Act of 2001 catapulted educational governance to the federal level.
NCLB was designed by Congress to “fundamentally change the structure of educa
tion—and enact the most sweeping change in education in 35 years” (Paige, 2002,
p. 2). NCLB provided a framework for new education reforms, based on “accounta
bility and results; by providing local control and flexibility; by empowering parents
to take a lead in their children’s education; and by insisting on teaching methods
that work” (p. 2). The law provides an explicit timeline for all students reaching
standards and achieving academic proficiency and measured by annual tests
(Debray, 2003). The legislation combines strict sanctions for ongoing failure and
focuses on success for racial and ethnic subgroups in order to close the achieve
ment gap. A 1998 International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) study
showed that the United States was among the lowest-performing countries in both
advanced mathematics and physics. In 2003 TIMMS showed the United States’
performance slightly increasing in the mathematics area but still disproportionately
low in world-wide comparisons.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The United States has thousands of schools, and each school is charged with
the responsibility to produce proficient students. Until NCLB there was not an
adequate nationwide standard for academic proficiency. NCLB is designed to
change the culture of America’s schools by closing the achievement gap, offering
more flexibility, giving parents more options, and teaching students based on what
works (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).
Teachers are the driving force behind creating a learning environment
where students will be successful. Students rely on teachers to prepare them for
their future by giving them a proper education. One way that the system can assure
that teachers are performing to the highest standards is through teacher evaluations.
Administrators must assess teacher quality, performance, and current teacher
evaluation practices to ensure that teachers are competent and up to the challenge
of teaching today’s youth in today’s ever-changing fast-paced environment.
Administrators must be evaluating what teachers are doing in the classroom, what
students are learning daily, and what is the relationship between teacher super
vision and evaluation that influences student achievement.
Statement o f the Problem
Effective teachers are necessary for any school to be successful. In order to
ensure that teachers are doing a quality performance and being highly effective in
assisting students to achieve success, a constructive evaluation process must be in
place. The evaluation process is the main component holding teachers accountable
to assure parents that qualified and motivated teachers are teaching their children.
This study examines whether teacher evaluation processes impact teacher perform
ance in support of student learning.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NCLB is the latest effort in school reform. NCLB seeks to provide equal
educational opportunities for all children. As a part of the accountability compon
ent identified in NCLB, the goal was set that all children be proficient on state-
defined education standards by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Qualified
teachers are necessary to ensure that all students attain this goal. Teacher quality
has been linked to improving student achievement; therefore, the recruitment and
retention of quality teachers will assist in the fulfillment of the goals of NCLB
reform. Effective teacher evaluation tools are one way to measure whether teacher
quality influences teacher performance resulting in improved student achievement.
In California schools the principal assumes the central leadership role. A
school leader must be able to read and adjust to the environment, understand and
cope with far-ranging issues, and have a strong sense of self and others (Hausman,
Crow, & Sperry, 2000). The principal’s job has increased in responsibility over the
past decade. Principals have evolved from being building managers to being
instructional leaders responsible for leading their schools to academic success.
Today’s instructional leaders function in a constantly changing environment and
serve students with greater and more diverse needs than ever before (Institute for
Educational leadership, 2000; King, 2002). The principal is the person who must
guarantee that teachers are performing to the highest standards and having a posi
tive influence on student achievement. The principal is ultimately held responsible
for the success of the school and its students’ scores. Are principals utilizing the
evaluative process in the most effective manner? Do principals appropriately
support teachers who do not receive outstanding evaluations? Are teachers getting
something out of the evaluation or is this a perfunctory process for the teacher?
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
What is the relationship between teacher supervision and evaluation that influences
student achievement?
Today’s accountability system in California centers on content standards for
all subjects. The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the Academic Performance
Index (API) targets must be met yearly because they determine funding levels for
schools. AYP is the minimum level of improvement that states, districts, and
schools must achieve each year, according to NCLB. The AYP measures each
state’s progress toward achieving stated academic standards. The API is
California’s public school index that ranks school and district performance. The
API is a state-mandated measuring tool calculated on public school performance
on standardized tests, such as the California Achievement Test (CAT6) and the
California Standards Test (CST). The use of API statistics has been the main
information source to identify factors associated with successful growth and
achievement.
The current evaluation system in California has been in place for over 3
decades. Three forms of evaluation are used in California: the Stull, Peer Assist
ance Review (PAR), and portfolios. With students’ poor scores statewide, is the
current evaluation system optimal for these changing times?
The Stull Bill, developed by state legislator John Stull and passed by the
California State Legislature in 1971, outlined the supervision-evaluation model
used in California that is found in the California Education Code §§ 44660-44665.
The Code’s § 44660 states that it is the intent of the legislature that governing
boards “ensure that teachers are assessed periodically for their quality of instruc
tion. It also provides school districts with the authority to develop individual
policies and procedures for implementing the Stull evaluation in accordance with
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the State law” (as cited in Lindheim, 2003, p. 4). Under the Stull system, teachers
who are nonpermanent employees or who are working under an emergency
credential are evaluated yearly; teachers on permanent contract are evaluated every
other year. The system consists of a preconference meeting, an in-class observation,
and a postconference meeting. Prior to the preconference meeting, the teacher
submits a planning sheet that includes observation objectives. During the precon
ference meeting the evaluator discusses the criteria that will be used in the final
evaluation report resulting from the observation. In the preconference meeting
either of the two parties can voice disagreements or concerns regarding the object
ives and can designate where modifications can be made to the plan. During the
conference the two agree on a date when the evaluator will observe the teacher’s
lesson. During the observation the evaluator will make specific written recom
mendations for improvement, offer appropriate counseling and assistance, and
provide the teacher with a written summary within 4 working days of the observa
tion. If the evaluator anticipates that the teacher may receive a “Below Standard
Performance” rating on the Final Evaluation Report, the evaluator consults with the
appropriate District Staff Relations Coordinator. The evaluator also completes the
following steps: notifies the district administrator by a set date, notifies the teacher
in writing of the possibility of issuing a below-standards rating, and continues to
assist, support, and guide the teacher throughout the school year.
If the evaluation is satisfactory, the evaluator prepares the Final Evaluation
form within a specified number of days. If there is more than one evaluator for the
evaluation, both evaluators must sign the document. The evaluator then holds the
final conference with the teacher and discusses the contents of the Final Evaluation
report. When a Final Evaluation is marked “Below Standard,” the evaluator must
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
specifically describe in writing the teacher’s identified weaknesses. The evaluator
must also identify recommendations for improvement and document assistance that
was given to the teacher throughout the year. A copy of the evaluation is given to
the teacher, a copy is placed in the teacher’s file, and the original is sent to the
human resources office of the district. A criticism of this evaluation process is that
the objectives defined at the beginning of the process may be vague or difficult to
measure, or the teacher may be unclear about how to obtain the objectives.
PAR is a significant portion of the California Education Code relating to
teacher evaluation. Under PAR, teacher participants may volunteer or be referred
for participation in the program for assistance by a consulting teacher. The govern
ance structure of PAR includes a teacher and administrator paired to select consult
ing teachers and make recommendations to the governing board of a district regard
ing participants in PAR. The majority of the panel must be certificated classroom
teachers. According to California Education Code § 44662, “results of an
employee’s participation in the Peer Assistance and review Program . . . shall be
made available as part of the evaluation of the employee” (p. 2). The PAR program
was designed was designed to “completely replace the California Mentor Teacher
Program” (California Education Code § 44504, p. 3). A criticism of this form of
evaluation is that some teachers are wary because they do not trust that the informa
tion between the two teachers will be held in confidence and that it may be shared
with administrators. Another criticism is that teachers may be reluctant to be
critiqued by a peer.
Portfolios are the newest form of evaluation in California. Portfolios are
compilations of samples prepared by the teacher that exhibit the teacher’s work.
Some of the works included in portfolios are examples of student work, grading
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rubrics, lesson plans, student test scores, teacher reflections, and anything else that
represents the teacher. Teachers can put their best and most creative work in these
portfolios and use them as a showcase for the evaluation process as well as for
parents and other teachers. Administrators as well as the teacher being evaluated
can look at the professional growth that has occurred throughout the year. A criti
cism of this form of evaluation is the amount of time that the teacher puts into the
portfolio process versus the amount of time that the administrator spends reviewing
the portfolio. Another criticism is the accuracy of the portfolio in correlation to the
actual teaching in the classroom; in other words, the teacher’s visual self-repre-
sentation may not accurately depict how the teacher teaches on a daily basis.
The researcher for the current study reviewed the evaluation process in
California, including the Stull, PAR, and portfolios, as evaluation tools to deter
mine their impact on student achievement. Research has identified high-achieving
schools and their best practices. Literature has also been produced about the factors
associated with improved student academic performance. What is yet to be learned
is whether the evaluation processes in place clearly identify the relationship
between the evaluation practices and improved student achievement? Or should
these evaluation practices be reevaluated to assure that all teachers are providing
the services that students deserve.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the teacher evaluation
process impacts teacher performance in support of student learning. In order to
fully address this topic, interviews, observations, surveys, and document analyses
were used. The interviews were standardized open-ended interviews utilizing a
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
guide with prepared questions to help with the flow of the interviews. The inter
views delved into the teachers’ perceptions of the validity and fairness of their
evaluation process. Through the surveys the researcher gained insight into the
teachers’ beliefs about the evaluation system. Document analysis revealed the
characteristic features of the school. Together, these instruments aided the
researcher to discover the components that maximized teacher performance and its
effect on student achievement.
Research Questions
The study focused on answering the following research questions:
1. How is the evaluation process practiced at the school site?
2. How does the teacher evaluation process impact teacher behavior?
3. What factors exist at the school that positively or negatively impact
teacher practice?
4. How does the site leadership team contribute to improved teacher
practice?
Importance o f the Study
All children are able to achieve high levels of academic performance, and
teachers are the connection of knowledge to the learning of the students. It is vital
that the quality of teachers meets the expectations of the public educational system.
It is through evaluation methods that teachers are supported. This study is signifi
cant in several ways. As the focus of school accountability centers on student
achievement, so have the efforts to develop quality teachers, making them all
“highly qualified” by 2006. This study serves to provide guidance to individuals in
leadership roles who implement the teacher evaluation system. This study makes
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommendations to school districts to ensure that teachers are receiving proper
guidance to become successful teachers through the evaluation process. This study
can be a guide for site administrators to as they prepare for teacher evaluations. The
study can serve as an important tool for districts that are looking at the connections
between effective teaching and student achievement. The study presents various
practices that successful schools use to increase student achievement.
Methodology
A qualitative case study approach was used to identify the factors that have
enabled a high-performing school to exceed its student achievement expectations.
The study used a mixed-methods qualitative approach. According to Gall, Gall, and
Borg (2003), a case study methodology offers flexibility in design and brings to life
a phenomenon that is of interest to the researcher. Using a qualitative design
approach versus a quantitative design allowed the researcher to interact with the
subject. Collection of data occurred through observations, interviews, and the
review and analysis of relevant literature and supporting documentation.
Limitations o f the Study
Due to the nature of the study’s design, there were various limitations to the
study. First, participants who were surveyed and interviewed were limited to per
sons who elected to take part in the study. Second, the researcher was a teacher in
the K-12 system of the school. Third, the information came only from the teachers
and administrators who chose to participate in the study. Fourth, the findings were
limited to the degree of accuracy with which the participants identified and com
municated their true perceptions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Delimitations o f the Study
This study was conducted with the following delimitations. This study was
delimited to an in-depth analysis of an individual urban public school in southern
California that had met a set of criteria determined by the researcher. The study was
delimited to 8 days on the particular campus. Interviews were of administrators and
teachers who were employed by the selected school. Pseudonyms were used for
employees, the school, and the district.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed that the data available from the California Depart
ment of Education (CDE) were accurate and valid (i.e., API, ranking, credentialing
information). It was also assumed that the data and information provided by the
school were accurate and up to date. It was assumed that the teachers and adminis
trators who participated in the interviews and surveys gave honest answers. The
school was covered under the California Education Code; however, the evaluation
practices at the school did not necessarily represent how the Stull Bill is carried out
at other or all California middle schools. The researcher assumed that there would
be a connection between the teacher evaluative process and the performance and
behavior of the teacher in the classroom. The researcher assumed that other factors
may have been present at the school site that contributed to the impact of student
learning. It was assumed that the leadership at the school site was stable and that
the administrators were viewed as strong instructional leaders.
Definitions o f Terms
Most of the definitions, unless a source is provided at the end of the
definition, were selected from an online glossary (EdSource, 2005). These terms
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were essential to the understanding of this case study. The acronyms were spelled
out in the case study but defined in this section.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). An individual state’s measure of yearly
progress toward achieving state academic standards. AYP is the minimum level of
improvement that states, school districts, and schools must achieve each year,
according to the federal NCLB Act.
Annual Performance Index (API). A single-number index for a school or
district using specified measures of student performance. A school’s API score is
used as the basis for ranking it among all California public schools. The ranking
system is based on deciles: Decile 1 schools are the lowest-performing schools and
decile 10 schools are the highest-performing schools.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA). A program estab
lished with the enactment of Senate Bill 1422 in 1992. The purpose of BTSA is to
implement cost-effective models for new teacher development in order to provide
academic preparation to succeed in the classroom and to retain a greater number of
capable beginning teachers.
California Achievement Test (CAT6). CAT6 is a norm-referenced test of
basic skills. Student scores are national percentile rankings that indicate the per
formance of each student relative to a national sample of students. A score of 50
means that a student is performing the same as the national sample.
California Department o f Education (CDE). The department of education in
California that provides curriculum and assessment guidance to schools as well as
other policies, procedures, and state educational mandates.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Standards Examination for Teachers (CSET). This assessment is
taken by secondary school teachers to demonstrate proficiency in the content area
that they teach (e.g., English language arts, mathematics, social studies, sciences).
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Professional
standards adopted by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC)
in 1997 to guide teacher preparation programs and new teacher assessments. These
standards are organized around six interrelated categories of teaching practice:
(a) engaging and supporting all students in learning, (b) creating and maintaining
effective environments for student learning, (c) understanding and organizing
subject matter for student learning, (d) planning instruction and designing learning
experiences for all students, (e) assessing student learning, and (f) developing as a
professional educator.
California Standards Test (CST). These tests are part of the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic
content standards, reflecting what teachers are expected to teach and what students
are expected to learn. These assessments are primarily multiple choice and cover
four subject areas: English language arts (grades 2-11), mathematics (grades 2-11),
history/social science (grades 8, 10, and 11), and science (for high school students
who are taking specific subjects such as biology, chemistry, or integrated science).
CSTs are CRTs, and students are scored as fa r below basic, below basic, basic,
proficient, or advanced. California’s goal is for every student to score at proficient
or above.
Content standards. Standards that describe what students should know and
be able to do in core academic subjects at each grade level. New K-12 academic
content standards were adopted by California in 1997. Because these standards are
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
technically “voluntary,” school districts may vary widely in the extent to which
they have aligned their curricula and teaching strategies to the new state standards.
Criterion-referenced, test (CRT). CRT is a test that measures specific per
formance or content standards, often along a continuum from total lack of skills to
excellence. These tests can also have cut scores that determine whether a test taker
has passed or failed the test or has basic, proficient, or advanced skills. The CRT
goal is to have everyone attain a passing mark.
Education Summit. This refers to a national gathering of policy makers,
educators, and government officials in 1989. The Education Summit was the event
that sparked the national school accountability movement. Six national goals for
school readiness were developed for all children to reach by the year 2000: school
completion, student achievement and citizenship, teacher education student popula
tion, teacher information, programs offered, and achievement levels reached on
statewide assessments.
Elementary and Secondary Educational Act o f 1965 (ESEA). The ESEA is
a principal federal law affecting K-12 education. NCLB is the most recent reauthor
ization of the ESEA. Originally enacted in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty,
ESEA was created to support the education of the country’s poorest children, which
remains its overarching purpose. Congress must reauthorize it every 6 years. Each
reauthorization of ESEA has involved some changes, but NCLB was the most
dramatic revision of the Act since its creation, particularly in terms of assessment
and teacher quality.
Highly qualified teacher. According to NCLB, a highly qualified teacher is
someone who has obtained full state teacher certification or has passed the state
teacher licensing examination and holds a license to teach in the state, holds a
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
minimum of a Bachelor’s degree, and has demonstrated subject area competence in
each academic subject taught.
Immediate Intervention Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). A
component of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) designed to
provide assistance and intervention for schools identified as underperforming.
Schools that meet improvement goals are eligible for financial and nonmonetary
rewards; schools that fail to meet growth targets over time may be subject to
district or state interventions. In 2002 lawmakers funded instead a similar program,
the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP).
Leadership frames. Four distinct frames that can be attributed to leadership
traits, offered by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (political, structural, symbolic,
human resource).
Local educational agency (LEA). A public board of education or other
public authority within a state that maintains administrative control of public
elementary or secondary schools. School districts and county offices of education
are both LEAs.
National Assessment o f Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is also
referred as the nation’ s report card. It reports a nationwide assessment of what
American students know and can do in various subject areas, including reading,
mathematics, science, writing, history, geography, the arts, and other fields.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB is the 2001
reauthorization of the ESEA. Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs provide
much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. NCLB’s provisions represent a signi
ficant change in the federal government’s influence in public schools and districts
throughout the United States, particularly in terms of assessment, accountability,
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and teacher quality. It increases the federal focus on the achievement by disadvan
taged pupils, including English learners and students who live in poverty; provides
funding for innovative programs; and supports the right of parents to transfer their
children to a different school if their school is low-performing or unsafe.
Norm-referenced test (NRT). An assessment in which an individual or
group’s performance is compared to that of a larger group. Usually, the larger
group is representative of a cross-section of all U.S. students.
Program Improvement (PI). PI is an intervention program under NCLB.
Schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds enter PI when, for 2 consecu
tive years, they do not make AYP toward the goal of having all students become
proficient in English language arts and mathematics by 2013-2014. Each state, with
federal approval, sets measurements of what is considered AYP each year. Once a
school makes AYP for 2 years in a row, it can leave PI. NCLB lists a series of
increasingly serious interventions for schools that remain in PI for the 5th year,
facing restructuring or takeover. Schools that do not receive Title I funds are not
subject to PI, even if they do not make AYP.
Public Schools Accountability Act o f1999 (PSAA). A law that outlines a
comprehensive process for measuring schools’ academic performance and ranking
schools based on that performance. When schools fall short of expectations, the
state may intervene, first with assistance and later with sanctions. The PSAA,
which was approved by California lawmakers in April 1999, has three main com
ponents: the API, the II/USP, and the Governor’s Performance Award (GPA)
program.
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9). This test is officially known as the
Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Form T. It is a standardized, nationally
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
normed, multiple-choice test that measures basic skills in mathematics, reading
English, and other areas. The SAT 9 was adopted by California in 1997 and
replaced by CAT/6 in 2003.
Stull Act of 1971). John Stull, a state legislator, developed the Stull Bill
(AB55), and the Act became part of the California Educational Code, §§ 44660-
44665, in the mid-1970s. The intent of the Stull Bill was to establish a uniform
system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of certificated personnel
within each school district of the state.
Teacher Peer Assistance and Review (PAR). A law enacted in March 1999
that encourages appointed consulting teachers to assist as well as be involved in the
performance evaluation of peers. Each district develops implementation details of
the program through a collective bargaining process. The local program is overseen
by a joint teacher-administrator peer review group.
Organization o f the Dissertation
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of the study, the
limitations, the delimitations, the assumptions, and the definition of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature. It addresses the following
topics: educational reform, a historical perspective on teacher evaluation, models of
evaluations, accountability and its relationship to evaluation, the link between
teacher quality and effectiveness, and how culture and leadership impact evaluation
processes.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the
research design, the population, sampling procedure, and the instruments used in
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the study. Chapter 4 presents the case study findings. Chapter 5 presents
analysis, conclusions, and implications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to explore the research that is
available to determine whether the teacher evaluation process currently in schools
improves student achievement and to review other practices in effective schools. It
begins with reviewing major educational reforms. The review continues by includ
ing the current accountability system, a brief historical perspective of the teacher
evaluation process, and similarities and differences in supervision and evaluation.
In order to identify what makes schools successful, one must research all compon
ents that produce better student performance. Therefore, this literature review con
centrates on school practices that lead to improved student achievement. In order to
address these issues, the research includes components of effective schools: climate
and culture, leadership, and professional development and concluding with criti
cisms of teacher evaluations. As the chapter develops, the research shows that,
despite evolving changes in education, the teacher evaluation process in California
has not changed since 1971, except for alternative evaluation processes that
maintain the original summative form.
Educational Reform
Over the past decade, one of the main objectives educators has been for
urban schools to perform as well as suburban schools (Kasarda, 1989). The impact
of race and poverty on student achievement has been addressed in multiple national
reports. For example, upon review of the NAEP reports from the 1970s and 1980s,
Mullis, Owen, and Phillips (1990) concluded that minority students from low-
income families achieved at a lower level than their White counterparts from
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
higher-income families. The TIMSS 1998 results showed that the lowest-perform
ing countries in mathematics and science literacy included Cyprus and South
Africa. The Czech Republic, the United States, and Austria were among the lowest-
performing countries in both advanced mathematics and physics. The TIMMS 2003
report showed a slight increase in the mathematics area for the United States but a
lower standing in worldwide comparisons.
Student achievement continues to be a top priority of educators throughout
the nation. According to Tucker and Strange (2005), Darling-Hammond (1998),
Schmoker (1999), and Papanastasiou (1999), the most important factor that affects
student achievement is the teacher. Throughout history there have been many
reforms that have impacted education and its struggle to be the leading advocate for
the future of children. Despite these changes in education, there have been few
modifications in the area of teacher evaluation.
With the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957, America was
awakened to the fact that it was behind in “the space race,” which stimulated the
nation to make educational changes. America’s educational infrastructure was
considered substandard, and more focus was needed for improving education.
Numerous projects were undertaken to develop new curricula and instructional
materials, primarily for K-12, that were inquiry oriented and in which students
were to be active learners, not passive subjects. The Coleman Report of 1966 was
the largest quantitative research study in the nation; in it, James Coleman revealed
that significant disparity existed between White and Black children’s educational
opportunities. Coleman claimed that Black children who attended White schools
had higher educational achievement than if they attended school in their neighbor
hoods with Black peers. Coleman argued for equality of educational opportunities
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for all students, regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin (Ehrenberg &
Brewer, 1995). Coleman opposed the busing movement; he fought for equitable
educational opportunities in all schools and did not think that students should have
to be removed from their neighborhoods to receive a quality education. The
Coleman Report was an initial indication that disparity existed between urban
disadvantaged schools and more affluent suburban schools.
Disadvantaged areas where urban schools are located are filled with eager
students who lack the educational opportunities that students in more affluent areas
have. Urban schools suffer from greater teacher shortages than suburban or rural
areas (Ascher & Schwartz, 1987). The unequal ground includes many factors, such
as social capital, financial income, family composition, minority status, and the
placement or higher incidence of new teachers in low-income areas. The single
greatest cause of educational inequality is the disproportionate exposure of poor
and minority students (those who fill inner city and urban schools) to less trained
and experienced teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1988).
The federal government responded to the growing opposition to unequal
educational opportunities for disadvantaged children by enacting ESEA in 1965.
This first federally funded educational act was launched by Lyndon B. Johnson.
This landmark legislation positively impacted children from low-income homes by
providing additional financial assistance to improve their schools’ educational
programs. The Act allocated one billion dollars to provide children from disadvan
taged backgrounds with extra educational services (Odden, 1995). The Act allowed
allocation of funds to programs such as Head Start, Follow-Through, bilingual
education, and numerous counseling and educational guidance programs. All of
these programs focused on improving students’ opportunities and outcomes in the
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classroom. This Act was developed because research showed that children from
low-income homes required more educational services than children from more
affluent homes. Stanton-Salazar (2001) commented that children in low-income
areas lack the social capital, have fewer opportunities, and need the extra resources
that ESEA provides. The Act ensures that these disadvantaged students have access
to a quality education (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The ESEA, since
1965, has been reauthorized every 5 years; with these reauthorizations, various
name changes have occurred under various Presidential administrations; however,
the goal has remained: a quality education for all.
Although America has had educational reform initiatives intermittently
since the nation was founded, in 1983 the United States declared that the nation
was “at risk.” It was reported to the American people that the educational founda
tions of society were being battered by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatened
the future of the nation and the people. A Nation at Risk dramatically revealed the
decline of the public school system in the United States (Berger, 2000). A Nation at
Risk illustrated the deficiencies of the public educational system. The concern was
that America was being threatened by a failing educational system; the nation had
to take action. The report stated, “What was unimaginable a generation ago has
begun to occur... others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments”
(p. 6). The challenge for the future was to take a serious look at public education
and rebuild the system to compete globally (Hogan, 1985). “Lousy schools are
producing a lousy workforce and that’s killing us in the global marketplace”
(Bracey, 1998, p. 4).
Since the late 1980s, teaching has been in the forefront because of the need
to ensure that students of the future will not be mediocre. Madeline Hunter, one of
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the most influential psychologists of the decade (Brandt, 1985) made it her mission
to translate psychological theory into educational theory. The following steps are
Hunter’s translation of the content of research into clinical professional practices.
The model consists of eight sequential steps that can be used to teach any lesson:
(a) teacher initiates anticipatory set, (b) teacher determines objective, (c) teacher
gives input, (d) teacher models, (e) teacher checks for understanding, (f) teacher
guides practice, (g) teacher assigns independent practice, and (h) teacher offers
closure. Hunter’s model has been popular among educators because of its clear and
organized structure. This model enables teachers to make appropriate decisions in
three major aspects of teaching: content, learner style and behavior, and teacher
behavior. This model provides teachers and administrators a baseline for teaching a
lesson (Hunter, 1986).
Continuing with educational reforms, by the end of the 1980s the prevailing
concept was setting academic standards. Academic standards were used to
exemplify what students should learn and to use these standards to guide system
components. This movement, often referred to as standards-based reform, entails
clear, measurable standards in all core academic subjects for elementary and
secondary school students. The rigorous coursework, coupled with high expecta
tions for student performance, the alignment of curriculum assessments, and pro
fessional development geared to the standards, could demonstrate that the school
systems across the state could be accountable by measurable goals.
Strong academic standards are essential for providing the sturdy foundation
that is needed to dramatically improve student achievement and gain public con
fidence in the education system (Ingram & Colby, 1998). Clear and rigorous
standards serve as a guide to focus resources on improving the academic
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance of students. Standards help to guarantee that all children, regardless of
background or neighborhood, are exposed to a rigorous academic curriculum
throughout their educational careers. Standards help everyone in the education
system to hold students to more rigorous learning than what has been expected in
the past.
Standards-Based Reform
Standards-based reform is a strategy to improve student academic
achievement by setting rigorous expectations for performance in academic subjects
(McLaughlin, 1990). Standards-based instruction is an effort to level the playing
field for all students, regardless of school district, race, or socioeconomic status.
Standards-based instruction ensures that all students are exposed to the same
rigorous curriculum (standards), regardless of the area in which the child attends
school.
Standards-based reform efforts arose from the public response to data
indicating that students in economically competing nations were outperforming
American students (Lewis, 1995). Beginning in the mid- to late 1980s, standards-
based systemic reform was translated into policy strategies at both the federal and
state levels (Massel, Kirst, & Hoppe, 1997). The development of standards-based
reform is believed not only to result in better teaching and learning, but to
guarantee that schools are accountable for the success of all students (McKeon,
1994). Standards are seen as a way to provide direction for teachers in terms of the
curriculum designed for students and the types of instructional practice needed to
improve student achievement (Gandal & Vranek, 2001). The application of
standards to all students is an essential aspect of standards-based reform.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Standards-based instruction, according to Briars (2000), refers to the setting
of academic standards for all students, clarifying what they should know and what
they should be able to do, grade by grade and in all core subjects. Because of the
failing schools nationwide, a drastic measure had to be incorporated; national
standards as well as state standards were to be implemented in the classroom. The
standards-setting process must be continually assessed so that students can advance
toward achieving proficiency while schools are held accountable for the results.
It is widely agreed that standards, assessments, and accountability can raise
student achievement when motivation and better teaching are added to the mix
(Briars, 2000). Standards-based reform encourages teachers to plan lessons and
assess student progress and achievement toward the standards, in contrast to the
traditional “cover the curriculum” model of pedagogy used in the past (Jamentz,
1998). Student knowledge is measured through district and state assessments,
which reflect the content standards. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the
students for teachers to plan standards-based lessons. It is also in the best interest of
school leaders to provide time and structured activities for teachers to improve their
knowledge and expertise in working with standards (U.S. Department of Education,
1999). Standards for students and teachers make learning and teaching measurable
tools for all to observe.
Teaching Standards
Standards for students should be matched by standards for teachers in order
to improve student academic achievement. Teacher credentialing should devise
policies that hold teacher professionals accountable for teaching to the standards.
Do teacher evaluations today hold teachers accountable for their teaching, just as
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the standards hold students accountable for their learning? A widely recognized set
of standards for the performance of teaching professionals can ensure the needed
consistency and quality in schools (Ambach, 1996). California has embarked on the
development and adoption of standards that represent what all teachers should be
able to do: CSTP. The CSTP are based on current research pertaining to best
teaching practice. Some California schools are using these standards in conjunction
with the evaluation process. The standards are organized around six interrelated
categories of teaching practice. Together these six standards represent a
developmental, holistic view of teaching.
1. Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
2. Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning
3. Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning
4. Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All
Students
5. Assessing Student Learning
6. Developing as a Professional Educator
The standards are intended to meet the needs of diverse teachers and
students in California (CCTC, 1997). In order to see that these standards are being
met and children are being serviced to the best of the teacher’s ability, the standards
must be an integral part of the teacher evaluation system. Students are held
accountable to the standards by standardized tests; should the California standards
be incorporated in the evaluation process? Are administrators looking at the teach
ing standards to evaluate teachers? Do the evaluation systems reflect the standards
and the changing times of teaching of today?
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
M odem Reform Efforts
The 1990s brought about a new reform movement that was influenced by
the criticisms of education launched in the 1980s. The desire for the future was to
see more stringent educational standards and better methods for assessing student
achievement. One of the changes that resulted from the reform was the rewriting of
ESEA. The 1994 version of ESEA stated that the students whose schools received
Title I funding should have the same educational expectations as students whose
schools were not Title I recipients. The 1994 version of ESEA incorporated
standards-based instruction for all students.
Goals 2000, the Educate America Act, was designed to improve learning
and teaching by providing a national framework for education reform. The Act’s
purpose was to promote educational research and consensus building and to make
the necessary structural changes to ensure that all children reached their full
potential and had equitable educational opportunities (EdSource, 2002). Goals 2000
was instituted in 1994 and was developed to assist states in defining the standards
and developing planning and implementation efforts at the state and district levels.
Goals 2000 provided resources and built a partnership between the federal and state
governments that translated into action at the district level. When signed into law
by President William Clinton in 1994, Goals 2000 was based on the premise that
every child in America would begin school and be ready to learn, that 90% of high
school students would graduate, and that the United States would rise to be ranked
first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. Most important, Goals
2000 made provisions for expanded opportunities for parents and the community to
become more involved in education.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goals 2000 was ESEA revisited. The ESEA of 1965 had undergone
changes to its name; however, the premise was still to provide all children with a
quality education, regardless of income. The Act offered “new hope” to tens of
thousands of youngsters as it provided them with trained professionals and
resources that were required for an appropriate education (Schugurensky, 2002).
Under the Clinton administration, this reform was referred to as Goals 2000;
however, in President Bush’s administration it was referred to as America 2000.
Accountability Movement
The notion that teachers should be held accountable for their jobs seems
perfectly straightforward and reasonable. What could be more sensible than to
expect teachers to do their best and to make appropriate changes in their job
performance as their level of success is assessed? Measuring teacher effectiveness
in terms of student learning achievement is a promising solution. It promises to
eliminate less direct indicators of teacher quality. The accountability movement in
education implies that, regardless of credentials, experience, prior jobs, or evalua
tions, what is most important and what a teacher is held most accountable for is
whether their students learn. The accountability movement is prevalent not only in
education; it has impacted all facets of business in the 21st century.
The general public, concerned parents, taxpayers, and other shareholders
now demand the best quality, least expensive, and fastest approach to goods and
services. Due to the failing public school system, the general public holds beliefs
that teachers are not held sufficiently accountable and simply do what they want
behind the closed doors of their classrooms. The public and NCLB now demand
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
higher accountability standards for teachers; teacher evaluation is one way to
increase teacher accountability.
In the past, schools had little or no prescribed accountability. Curriculum
was based on the knowledge that the teachers brought with them or the institutional
knowledge of the school. The result was a major inconsistency in levels of learning
from school to school and from student to student. In 1989 the drive for accounta
bility and educational standards formally commenced because of the Education
Summit, where national educational goals were developed (Allen, 1994). The
Summit encouraged efforts to set standards in each of the main academic content
areas, including science, history, civics, and the arts. Since the mid-1990s educa
tion reform by states instituting standards-based accountability policies has focused
on student performance. The intent of increased accountability has been to create
incentives to align curriculum and instruction with standards, foster the analysis
and use of data, and focus attention on continuous student progress (EdSource,
2000).
The identification of effective schools was both a movement initiated in the
1970s and a contribution to a massive body of educational research. The effective
schools movement began with the concern that educators had with the apparent
academic inequity between children from different socioeconomic classes. The
effective schools movement was focused on identifying organizational factors that
contribute to student learning in order to minimize the achievement differential
between students of different backgrounds (Bliss, Firestone, & Richards, 1991).
Edmonds (1981), a noted spokesperson in the United States, identified five charac
teristics of effective schools in poor communities serving many minority students:
(a) high teacher expectations for all students, (b) teacher/principal agreement on
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
basic skills education as the school’s central goal, (c) principals as instructional
leaders, (d) an orderly, well-maintained environment with generally accepted
disciplinary standards, and (e) regular standardized testing to measure student
achievement, with instruction adjusted accordingly. Edmonds advocated the
adoption of these five characteristics as part of the effective schools movement.
The effective schools movement has evolved over time and many important
components have become clearer. The most important component, according to
Edmonds, is leadership. “There may be schools out there that have strong
instructional leaders, but are not yet effective; however, we have never yet found an
effective school that did not have a strong instructional leader as the principal”
(p. 4). Edmonds’s opinion will be highlighted again under the leadership section of
this paper, where the literature shows that effective schools need effective leaders.
Continuing to improve the accountability system, California lawmakers
passed the PSAA of 1999. The PSAA mandated that the public schools system
produce students who are lifelong learners and would graduate equipped to succeed
within the economic and societal complexities of the 21st century. Schools must
implement accountability systems that encourage teacher preparation, ongoing
professional development, consistent interaction with the community, and active
parental involvement. Schools must also approach accountability with an air of
correction, encouragement, and collaboration (CDE, 2004). Incorporated in the
PSAA is a requirement that schools scoring below the 50th percentile on the
standards must be enrolled in the II/USP, with the possibility of receiving a
$50,000 planning/proposal grant to aid in addressing deficiencies.
Another important aspect that is included in the PSAA is the School
Accountability Report Card (S ARC), which is used as an accountability tool
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
requiring each district to input its data (average Scholastic Achievement Test
scores, dropout rates, number of credentialed teachers, etc.) into an Internet data
base and to maintain the information accurately on an annual basis. The SARC
allows parents and the community to see the vital statistics about the school.
Today’s accountability system in California focuses on content standards
for all subjects. The AYP and the API are both metrics, the targets of which must
be met yearly because they determine funding levels for schools.
NCLB, originated in 2001, is the latest federal-level effort in school reform.
NCLB seeks to provide equal educational opportunities for all children. NCLB
Section 1111(b)(1) requires that school-wide reforms include the following:
• Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school
• Implement school-wide strategies that provide opportunities for the
children to meet the state’s proficient and advanced levels of student
academic achievement
• Adopt effective methods and instructional strategies that meet the needs
of underserved populations, low-achieving children, and those at risk of
not meeting the state’s student academic achievement standards
• Provide instruction by highly qualified teachers and provide high quality,
ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, and parapro-
fessionals
• Include teachers in decisions regarding the use of assessments to improve
student achievement
• Provide immediate and effective intervention for students experiencing
difficulty in mastering the proficient or advanced levels of academic
achievement standards
• Coordinate and integrate federal, state, and local services and programs
As a part of the accountability component of NCLB, the goal was set that
all children be proficient according to state-defined education standards by the end
of the 2013-2014 school year. Qualified teachers are a necessity to ensure that all
students attain this goal. Teacher quality is the most important factor in improving
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student achievement; therefore, the recruitment and retention of quality teachers
will assist in the fulfillment of the goals of this reform (Darling-Hammond, 1998;
Papanastasiou, 1999; Schmoker, 1999; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). The Act requires
that, by fall 2006, all K-12 teachers must be deemed “highly qualified” in all core
subjects to be considered for full-time employment.
Brief History o f Evaluation
Teacher evaluation systems are deemed by most school administrators and
teachers to be extremely stressful, having little or no value, and acting as a barrier
to high staff morale. Wise and Darling-Hammond (1985) indicated that “the time of
the evaluator is too short, the span of control too wide and the expertise too limited
to produce reliable and valid insights that might lead to significant action” (p. 29).
The assessment of a teacher’s performance is as old as the education profession
itself. Few issues in education have the potential to generate as much fervor for
educators as the evaluation of teachers (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989).
To begin to identify whether teacher evaluation has any connection to
student achievement, a brief history of teacher evaluation is presented. It seems
evident that over the past century the ability to properly evaluate teacher perform
ance has been difficult to measure. Greater clarity has evolved, leading up to the
present methods for teacher evaluation. The evaluation process usually involves
preparation, observation, data collection, reporting, and follow-up.
The earliest form of teacher evaluation was the use of a “multifactor teacher
rating scale” that was introduced in the 1915 yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education. There was no clear analytical evaluation method in place
leading into the 1930s and 1940s; rather, there was an emphasis on personality and
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
personality characteristics of good teachers. Educational leaders knew that there
should be a more substantial method to identify factors that were essential in the
training and education of teachers. Significant change arose in the 1940s when
many conceptual frameworks for evaluating teachers materialized in the literature
and a greater knowledge base pertaining to teacher evaluation began to appear
(Ellet & Teddlie, 2003). By 1949, R. Tyler created instructional strategies, along
with testing students for mastery of the curriculum, which took the evaluation
process to new heights (Coutts, 1999).
In the 1950s and 1960s there were major advances among educational
researchers to step up the efforts to identify effective teaching methods (Ellet &
Teddlie, 2003). The leading researchers saw the connection of student outcome and
teaching practice. The need for a structured evaluation was eminent. It was in 1967
that R. E. Stake identified that a formalized observation was the missing link in the
educational system. Stake asserted that teacher observations were too reliant on
casual observations and subjective judgment, necessitating that supervisor monitor
the gap that was happening in schools between what was intended and what was
occurring in the classroom (Coutts, 1999). During the 1970s, “the predominant
paradigm for research on teaching became known as the process-product research
and the literature began to frame criteria appearing on many teacher evaluation
systems” (Ellet & Teddlie, p. 105). In 1971 California introduced an evaluation
system known as the Stull Act, introduced by Senator John Stull. It was the first
formal evaluation system in California to set guidelines for the process of evaluat
ing certified personnel. It continues to be the most common form of teacher evalua
tion in California.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Models of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation is a complex process. It is a series of activities and
actions that are interconnected and related for specific purpose. The general
purpose of teacher evaluation is to safeguard and improve the quality of instruction
received by students. Teacher evaluation, according to Goldrick (2002), is the
process by which teachers are professionally assessed. The evaluation process
usually involves preparation, observation, data collection, reporting, and follow-up.
Data collection normally includes a formal observation that is preceded by a pre
observation conference and followed by a postobservation conference. Teacher
evaluation should be a small but significant part of the larger strategy for school
improvement, which should also include opportunities for staff development.
Literature suggests forms of teacher evaluation practice that could improve
teacher performance and in turn influence student achievement (Ebmeier &
Nicklaus, 1999; Ellett & Garland, 1987; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Darling-
Hammond (1983) defined teacher evaluation as “collecting and using information
to judge” (p. 289). Danielson (2001) maintained that, in teacher evaluation,
teachers must be held accountable for what they do as teachers but not for what
their students do as learners. The quality and effectiveness of teacher evaluation
vary from school to school and district to district. In some school districts teacher
evaluation is an administrative requirement, which includes a brief visit from the
site principal or designated administrator once or twice a year.
The Stull Evaluation
The Stull evaluation is found in the California Education Code §§ 44660-
44665. It reflects the desire of lawmakers to ensure that teachers have a periodic
form of evaluation to assess the quality of their teaching. The Stull was adopted by
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
each school district in California; it is intended to establish a uniform system of
evaluation. All teachers who are certificated are subject to a system of evaluation.
The Stull is an outline of the requirements and guidelines stipulated by the state but
each district modifies it to meet their needs. The Stull evaluation system does not
apply to certificated personnel who work on an hourly basis in adult education. The
California Education Code § 44660 was instituted by the legislature to give
authority to school boards to adhere to policies and procedures established by the
California School Board Association (CSBA). The CSBA reviews and revises these
policies on an annual basis. The fact that there is a written code on evaluation
makes teachers’ collective bargaining negotiations easier because unions can refer
to the language that is in the Code to negotiate salaries, benefits, and evaluation.
Under the Stull system, teachers who are nonpermanent employees or who
are working under an emergency credential are evaluated yearly; teachers on
permanent contract are evaluated every other year, as negotiated by the bargaining
unit. The system consists of a preobservation conference and a postobservation
conference. Prior to the preobservation conference the teacher submits a planning
sheet that includes the objectives that will be covered in the observation. The
principal works with the teacher to formulate objectives for the year. During the
preobservation conference, the principal discusses the criteria that will be used in
the final evaluation report. This conference is a mutual conference, where either of
the parties can voice disagreements or concerns regarding the objectives and agree
on modifications. During the conference the two agree on an observation date when
the principal will observe the teacher’s lesson. During the observation the principal
makes specific written recommendations for improvement, offers appropriate
counseling and assistance, and provides the employee a written summary within 4
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
working days of the observation. If the evaluator anticipates that the employee may
receive a “Below Standard Performance” rating on the Final Evaluation Report, the
evaluator consults with the appropriate Staff Relations Coordinator. The evaluator
should also complete the following steps: notify the district administrator by a set
date, notify the employee in writing of the possibility of issuing a below-standards
rating, and continue the assistance and guidance to the employee.
If the evaluation is satisfactory, the evaluator prepares the Final Evaluation
form within a specified number of days. If there is more than one evaluator for the
evaluation, both evaluators must sign the document. The evaluator holds the final
conference with the employee and discusses the contents of the Final Evaluation
Report. When a Final Evaluation is marked “Below Standard,” the evaluator must
specifically describe in writing the teacher’s weakness. The evaluator must also
identify recommendations for improvement and document assistance that was
given to the employee throughout the year. Copies of the evaluation are given to
the employee and placed in the employee’s file; the original is sent to the district’s
human resources office.
A criticism of this evaluation process is that the objectives that are defined
at the beginning of the process may be difficult to measure, the objectives may be
vague, or the teacher may not get a clear picture of how to attain the objectives. The
Stull is the most common form of evaluation in California, and has been for many
years; however, as new administrators research alternative methods of evaluation,
more innovative techniques will emerge. An example is the portfolio.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Portfolios i
Portfolios are one of the most recent forms of teacher evaluations. Port
folios are performance-based authentic assessments that involve the collection of
information from real-life situations (Berger, 2000). Many of the researchers who
have encountered portfolios as an evaluation tool have agreed that portfolios can
demonstrate a teacher’s knowledge of the content and can be used as a reflection
piece for growth. By utilizing a portfolio, the teacher can illustrate what goes on in
the classroom while the administrator is not present, by providing realia from the
students; evidence is presented that learning is taking place. Portfolios are a
collection of a teacher’s work, gathered to exhibit content knowledge and instruc
tional skills (Goldrick, 2002).
Portfolios focus on the strategies that the teacher uses in the classroom, the
content of specialization, and the sequence in which the strategies are performed
(Xu, 2004). Stone (1995) suggested that portfolios can be helpful for teachers
because they can use them to more clearly organize future instruction and create a
more appropriate learning environment for the individual student, based on feed
back received from portfolio reviewers. Perkins and Gelfer (1993) concurred that
teacher portfolios are a form of organization but also are a representation of a
teacher’s management, creativity, and effectiveness. Tucker and Stronge (2005),
agreed that portfolios are an effective form of evaluation.
Given that administrators evaluate teachers through limited classroom
observations, the portfolio has been found to be a useful tool in documenting
teacher performance in areas such as assessment and professionalism—qualities not
always visible during classroom visits. The contents included in a portfolio are
items that are representative of the teacher’s work. The contents may include
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
written work, such as reports, term papers, graded tests and assignments, lesson/
unit plans, artwork, lists of professional books and articles read, lists of conferences
attended, sample student work, letters from parents, commendations, notes from
students, and video recordings of teaching. These representations could come from
multiple sources, including course work, field experiences, volunteer activities, or
professional organizations.
The most important aspect that keeps the portfolio from simply being a
scrapbook is the reflection that the teacher utilizes regarding what each artifact
demonstrates about his or her educational philosophy, learning, and professional
growth and development. According to Richert (1990), reflection is the ability to
think about what one does and why. Reflection influences one’s growth as a pro
fessional by how successful one learns from one’s experiences. Reflection is that
kind of “thinking that extracts meaning from experiences as a mechanism to propel
development” (Guillaume & Yopp, 1995, p. 96).
The portfolio is an ongoing personal story of the creator’s growth through
the educational journey. The reason for using a portfolio is to encompass the com
plex activity of teaching. It has a broad range and is the simultaneous orchestration
of students, curriculum, instruction, assessment, resources, and clerical duties.
Teachers are involved in a large number of influential daily interactions and daily
decisions. Teachers learn to use the interactions and decisions and incorporate them
into their routine. Teachers use these routines to become more effective by under
standing what works and what does not work. Portfolios provide a way of assessing
how well teachers meet the demands of teaching. Teaching requires a deep and rich
understanding of content. Portfolios provide opportunities for teachers to show
their individual mark to the teaching profession. Teaching is a lifelong process, and
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
using a portfolio encourages the teacher to reflect on professional growth to
become a better teacher.
Peer Assistance and Review
PAR is recognized nationally as a program that uses knowledgeable,
exemplary teachers to help other teachers (new or veteran) with various strategies,
including subject matter, that ultimately link to teacher success. In the case of a
veteran teacher, PAR is used when the teacher has received an unsatisfactory final
evaluation. The administrator must evaluate the teacher annually until the teacher
achieves a positive evaluation or is separated from the district (California Educa
tion Code § 44664-3b). This policy was put into place to support and guide teachers
in their profession, and to make them accountable, even in some cases to include
termination. Goldrick (2002) reported that Ohio created the best peer review pro
grams in 1986; however, Goldrick recognized that California was the first state to
enact a peer review law in 1999.
Consulting teachers serve as mentors to teachers who could use the support
in the classroom with such matters as strategies, materials, ideas, or just striving to
improve teacher quality. In the case of new teachers, PAR offers support through
mentors as guidance for the upcoming career in teaching.
Another aspect of PAR is the peer review portion. PAR can exist without
the review portion in that it can exist solely for support in improving teacher
performance. However, the review portion can add an evaluation component for the
struggling teacher; it allows the mentoring teacher to evaluate the teacher, pointing
out areas where improvement is needed.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Peer review, according to Hertling (1999), is a method in which new and
veteran teachers improve their knowledge and skills. In some cases, it is more
helpful for the teacher to hear what areas need improvement from a teacher than it
is to hear it from an administrator. A necessary component of PAR as a review tool
is that the employee’s bargaining unit has input to the review process.
PAR has mandated districts to implement the program in order to continue
to receive specific funds. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future claimed that numerous teachers have received additional help and more
incompetent teachers have been dismissed under peer review than under the
traditional methods of evaluation. In Cincinnati, almost twice as many teachers
were dismissed under peer review as under administrator evaluations (U.S.
Department of Education, 1999; Weiss & Weiss, 1998).
California has been a leader in the movement with the BTSA program.
BTSA pairs new teachers with support providers for a 2-year period; they attend
workshops together and are given released time for informal evaluation and lesson
planning and to provide support for the new teacher. In a profession where teachers
leave after an average of 7 years, turnover is a growing concern. This additional
support through BTSA helps to connect the new teachers with their professions.
Glickman (2001) discussed the isolation of the one-room schoolhouse and how the
feeling of being isolated has permeated far beyond that reality. BTSA provides an
opportunity for new teachers to not feel so isolated and to get support from their
support providers, as well as to have an opportunity to connect with other new
teachers in similar situations (Griffin, 1985).
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summative and Formative Evaluations
For educational administrators at all levels, one of the most difficult
responsibilities of the job is the evaluation of staff. Teacher support, growth, and
evaluation are important to provide the best learning environment and strategies for
all students. An effective teacher evaluation is one way to ensure that teacher
actions, judgments, and decisions are in the best interests of students and support
optimum learning. The literature reveals that the current methods used for teacher
evaluation fall under two categories: summative and formative.
Summative Evaluation
According to Gullatt and Ballard (1998), summative evaluation is a judg
mental decision of the quality and worth of an individual teacher over a specified
time frame. Summative models for evaluation include minimum specific standards
that teachers are required to meet and that are used for teacher accountability
(Dagley & Orso, 1991). A summative evaluation is designed to measure teaching
competence. This process is conducted by school administrators or evaluators and
may include professional development, classroom observations, or verification of
continued education. Teacher evaluations have been, for the most part, strictly a
mechanism for assessing job performance. There is an assortment of ways in which
the summative evaluation process has been used: It has been used as an assessment
for personnel action, rather than as an improvement tool; it serves for organiza
tional decision-making purposes; and it is a one-way communication from an
administrator to the teacher on the adequacy of the teacher’s performance following
two or more observation periods. The results of summative evaluations can also be
used for decisions about tenure, renewal of contract, or merit pay. Summative
evaluations for new teachers have been used to ensure that the teacher has the
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
essential teaching skills to continue working in the classroom. Summative evalua
tions also serve as reinforcement for policymakers that a quality teaching force is
maintained. Another reason for a summative evaluation is the allocation of teachers
to their proper teaching positions.
Goldrick (2002) commented that the evaluation process is subjective and
based on insufficient classroom observations. Traditionally, the teacher evaluation
deals with yielding a single summative statement with a recommendation of either
renewal or termination of employment (Starratt, 1997). The purpose of evaluating a
teacher has progressed into more than just a renewal of the position or job termina
tion. In California, administrators and teachers have been utilizing new methods of
teacher evaluation; however, the Stull is still the standard form of evaluation in
California and the law. The Stull is a formal summative approach of evaluation that
established a uniformed method of teacher evaluation statewide.
Formative Evaluation
A formative evaluation is an evaluation that provides constructive feedback
for teachers that is aimed to help them to improve on a continuing basis. Gullatt
and Ballard (1998) explained that it is necessary to realize the purpose for a forma
tive type of evaluation. The formative evaluation can help teachers in the following
manner: (a) encourage continual teacher self-evaluation and reflection and discour
age the development of teaching routines that never change, (b) encourage indivi
dual professional growth in areas of interest to the teacher, (c) improve teacher
morale and motivation by treating the teacher as a professional in charge of his or
her own professional growth, (d) encourage teacher collegiality and discussion
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about practices among peers in a school, and (e) support teachers as they try new
instructional approaches.
A formative teacher evaluation system is a set of procedures or methods
that encourages teachers to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching
(Barth, 1990). The goal of the formative evaluation is more concerned with the
teachers’ ongoing professional growth; therefore, the focus is more on the actions
that teachers can utilize to improve teaching practice (Starratt, 1997).
The formative evaluation process is used as a tool to assist in the develop
ment of beginning teachers as well as assessment of veteran teachers. Formative
evaluations include portfolios, BTSA, and PAR. Portfolios are often used as an
effective tool for evaluation of a veteran teacher who wants to have an alternative
form of evaluation. This type of formative evaluation allows the veteran to focus on
a specific goal and work toward it throughout the year. The PAR program is
utilized as a form of evaluation for the veteran teacher who is struggling and needs
extra support. PAR also operates as a formative process for beginning teachers.
Whichever forms are used for teacher evaluation, the goal is to improve
teacher practice and in turn to improve student achievement. Many states have
already implemented formative teacher evaluation, and California is now beginning
the implementation statewide.
Effective Schools
Effective schools have many components that make the system successful.
The literature on effective schools supports the use of standards-based instruction,
data-driven decisions, and parent and community involvement. Edmonds (1981)
identified five characteristics present in effective schools that are in poor
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communities with many minority students: (a) high teacher expectations for all
students, (b) teacher/principal agreement on basic skills education as the school’s
central goal, (c) principals as instructional leaders, (d) an orderly, well-maintained
environment with generally accepted disciplinary standards, and (e) regular
standardized testing to measure student achievement, with instruction adjusted
accordingly.
The characteristics that Edmonds (1981) identified are prevalent in the
research, using one or all the characteristics to describe an effective school.
Teachers in effective schools must adapt instruction to the needs of the students and
the situation rather than rigidly following a fixed script. Teachers must be flexible
to allow for the complexity of the daily teaching, which requires making thoughtful
decisions prior to putting them into action. Because classroom life is complex and
varies with regard to students and subject matter, teachers should develop an
instructional repertoire and skills in selecting procedures that are appropriate for the
particular situation. Marzano (2003) added that effective teachers seem to be
effective with all children at all achievement levels, and that it is the teacher who
makes the most impact on children.
Principals as instructional leaders constitute an essential component of a
successful school. According to Whitaker (2003), effective principals recruit better
teachers and value professional development. Leaders in an effective school must
ensure that teachers are using various strategies to be successful. The literature
shows that successful schools have had principals who were successful in inspiring
their teachers to reflect on their own practices, to engage in their own development,
and to recognize that there is opportunity for self-improvement (McGreal, 1983;
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McLaughlin & Pfeifer, 1988; Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1985; Wise, 1984; Wood &
Lease, 1987).
An effective high-performance school must begin with a comprehensive
vision. Essentially, “Vision is a mental journey from the known to the unknown,
creating the future from a montage of current facts, hopes, dreams, dangers, and
opportunities” (Hickman & Silva, 1984, p. 157). All persons in the school must
know and believe in this vision. Obiakor (2000) commented that effective schools
are those schools whose environment enables all students and staff to maximize
their full potential. Sergiovanni (1984) debated the notion that solely high morale
and high test scores characterize effective schools. He added that an effective
leader is critical.
A common component to the effective school is that effective schools
exceed the expectations necessary to be considered satisfactory. The elements of all
successful schools include strong leadership, focused curriculum and vision, parent
involvement, and an organizational environment that supports instruction. Under
the effective schools umbrella, teacher quality, professional development, culture/
climate and leadership will be discussed.
Teacher Quality
Research has shown that a quality teacher can improve student achieve
ment. A quality teacher has many attributes: deep subject matter knowledge, use of
multiple teaching methods based on the level of student development, understand
ing of how to use assessments and other data to guide instructional choices,
sensitivity to cultural and social conditions, understanding of students as indivi
duals, and a commitment to professional growth and continued learning. Haselkom
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and Harris (2001) found that Californians agreed that public education is essential
to the survival of the nation and that quality teaching is the most importance in
creating quality schools and in contributing to high student achievement.
Californians in that 2001 study demonstrated a higher level of concern over teacher
quality and a greater overall intensity of sentiment toward the problems facing
public education than did the rest of the nation. Qualified teachers were seen as the
key to lifting student achievement far more than the focus on high-stakes testing
and higher student standards. Researchers have agreed that, to ensure that teachers
are well prepared to teach students in an increasingly diverse and challenging
public school system, a greater investment in teacher preparation and development
is essential (Darling-Hammond, Ball, & Loewenberg, 1998; Haselkom & Harris).
In Alabama, Ronald Ferguson and Helen Ladd demonstrated the correlation
between teacher test scores and student achievement by comparing student achieve
ment in two schools, one predominately African American with less qualified
teachers, the other predominately White with better-qualified teachers. They
discovered that an increase of just one standard deviation in the verbal ability test
scores of teachers at the African American school offset about half the difference in
student achievement between the two schools (Ladd, 1996).
A Texas study revealed that 40% of the difference in student scores on
standardized mathematics and reading tests was attributable to teacher qualifica
tions, in this instance as measured by teacher scores on licensing examinations,
years of experience, and possession/lack of a graduate degree (Goodwin, 1999).
Research by Hiebert, Gallimore, and Sigler (2002) determined that efforts to
provide teachers with an enhanced knowledge base increases student learning. Also
of significance to evaluators of teachers is a seminal 1978 study by the RAND
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Corporation, which found that high teacher self-efficacy (i.e., teachers’ attitudes
about their own professional competence) had a major influence on the effective
ness of change-agent projects. Geringer (2003) stated that the areas recommended
for resources to be targeted for quality teaching were (a) new teacher preparation
and induction, (b) recruitment and retention of teachers, (c) professional develop
ment building content knowledge and teaching skills, (d) teacher licensure, (e)
teacher evaluation, (f) accountability linked to standards, and (g) leadership target
ing improvement in teaching and learning. Researchers have agreed that it is the
teacher implementing effective teaching practices who accounts for student
success. The goal of teacher evaluation and supervision practices must therefore be
to impact and create improved teacher practice in the classroom.
Professional Development
For teachers, professional development in the past has been an exercise that
consisted of a conference here or there or an after-school faculty function that
identified a few long-term objectives. Teachers who attended these functions rarely
practiced what they learned in their classroom; therefore, the knowledge that was
disseminated at these events was never learned. Professional development is more
than an attending a day-long training or seminar; it is continued professional
growth and obtaining new knowledge and then integrating those skills and knowl
edge into daily activities.
Approaches to teacher evaluation have included reviewing professional
development plans (Holland & Adams, 2002), examining teacher work samples
(Denner, Salzman, & Bangert, 2001), conducting peer reviews (Kumrow & Dahlen,
2002), and evaluating professional portfolios (Moore & Bond, 2002). Research
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
suggests that such approaches have been most effective when they have occurred
regularly, were part of proactive professional development programs, were based
on multiple measures, and resulted in information to improve instruction
(Protheroe, 2002).
Professional development is an ongoing process that benefits the participant
and implies advantages for recipients. It is seen as a quest for continuous improve
ment. Wilcox and Tomei (1999) emphasized that appropriate professional develop
ment can increase student learning by improving teacher knowledge, skills, and
disposition. Shiller (1994) posited five principles of professional development:
(a) Effective professional development must be school based, (b) effective pro
fessional development uses coaching and other follow-up procedures, (c) effective
professional development is collaborative, (d) effective professional development is
embedded in the daily lives of teachers providing for continuous growth, and
(e) effective professional development focuses on student learning and is evaluated
through student learning.
Using a professional development initiative as a panacea for school
improvement and greater student learning, may not be completely successful; other
components should also be implemented. Schools with leaders who are strong
advocates of continuous learning show that time is built into a schedule for pro
fessional development. Teachers routinely communicate with one another and work
collaboratively to solve problems. Innovation is encouraged. There is a clear
strategy for overall school improvement. Without proper support, even the best
professional development initiatives undertaken by the brightest and most
motivated teachers may not be successful.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Culture/Climate
School culture and climate refers to the sum of the values, cultures, safety
practices, and organizational structures within a school that cause it to function and
react in particular ways. Healthy and sound school cultures correlate strongly with
increased student achievement and motivation and with teacher productivity and
satisfaction. The school’s culture and underlying values can dictate the types of
evaluative models that are utilized to assess teacher performance. Understanding a
school’s culture can give an indication of how satisfied teachers may be with their
evaluation process. A nurturing culture is more likely to have a collaborative,
nonpunitive evaluation system, while a more authoritative culture is likely to take a
more disciplinary approach (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991).
Embracing the culture of a school improves collegial collaborative activities
that cultivate better communication and problem-solving practices. This culture
serves to give direction that is meaningful by providing a source of significance for
teachers, students, administrators, and others in the school (Sergiovanni, 1984). In
school cultures valuing collegiality and collaboration, there is a better climate for
the social and professional exchange of ideas, the enhancement and spread of
effective practices, and widespread professional problem solving (Deal & Peterson,
1999). Developing school culture has to do not just with identifying strategies but
also with actually taking action to solve problems. The culture is “the climate and
practices that organizations develop around their handling of people or to refer to
espoused values and credo of an organization” (Schein, 1992, p. 3). School culture
lies in the commonly held beliefs of teachers, students, and principals. According to
Deal and Kennedy (1982), schools culture dictates, in no uncertain terms, the way
things are run.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The impact of the principal on the culture and climate of the school cannot
be denied. Because the principal has regular contact with teachers and students, he
or she has a profound influence on individual school practices (Johnson, S. M.,
1996). Blumberg and Greenfield (1985) viewed the principal as the “central and
important contributor to what happens in school” (p. 239).
School culture is an informal element of school structure but it impacts the
school, students, and staff unlike anything else. It is through the culture of an
organization that employees express, “This is the way we do things around here”
(Deal & Kennedy, 1982). It is what newcomers feel and see as they enter an
institution. School culture is unique at every site and changes with each principal’s
leadership style. Yet it is undeniable that school culture directly impacts the
school’s overall effectiveness and productivity (Deal & Peterson, 1999). It provides
structure and focus for classroom instruction as well as incorporating new people
into its community (Bolman & Deal, 1990; Deal & Peterson). Strong, positive,
collaborative cultures have powerful effects on many features of school (Deal &
Peterson). The culture reflects the comfort level of the teacher evaluation process.
This also includes the communication between teachers and administrators, making
evaluations more meaningful to the teacher. Finally, the culture of a school reflects
its leadership and has significant impact on student achievement.
Leadership
Teachers need to trust administrators and have opportunities to participate
in the decisions concerning the direction of the school. Leadership is a vital part of
a school culture. In their search for ways to improve school performance, educators
and policy makers have addressed a broad array of challenges confronting schools.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These approaches to improvement have included raising standards, strengthening
teacher professional development, refocusing schools around the primary goal of
student achievement, and holding schools accountable for results. But only one area
of policy—strengthening school leadership—can exert control over all of these
challenges simultaneously. Instructional leaders shape the environment in which
teachers and students succeed or fail (Elmore, 2000).
School leaders can influence levels of motivation by “shaping the school’s
instructional climate,” which in turn shapes “the attitudes of teachers, students,
parents, and the community at large toward education” (Bolman & Deal, 1997,
p. 163). School principals exercise a measurable influence on school effectiveness
and student achievement. School leaders provide focus and direction to curriculum
and teaching and manage the organization efficiently to support student learning.
Principals evaluate teachers and make decisions about classroom assignments.
Smooth communication between teacher and administrator can affect the outcomes
of the evaluation process. When classroom instruction is weak in underperforming
schools or when large numbers of teachers are teaching out-of-field in these
schools, significant responsibility rests with the principals, and it is in their role as
leader that they must act as change agent. The leader in an effective school is the
catalyst for giving teacher support, communicating the problems in the classroom,
and ensuring that improving student achievement is a priority.
An effective and influential leader maintains a variety of leadership traits
and characteristics. Leaders must not only create a vision for their organization, but
they must encourage others within the organization to believe and to sustain the
vision (Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 2002; Goldring, 2002). According to Edgar
Schein (1992), “The only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to understand
and work with culture” (p. 3). It is through the culture that leaders give directions to
all members of the organization. Teachers indicate that principals, rather than
superintendents, have the greatest leverage on their work (Johnson, S. M., 1996).
School leadership practices are an integral part of the characteristics that define
successful schools (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Researchers suggest that school leadership is linked directly to student
learning via the principal’s influences on such processes as academic expectations,
opportunities to learn, and instructional organization, and teacher evaluation
(Johnson, J., Livingston, Schwartz, & Slate, 2000). Effective leaders are constantly
learning and looking for ways to improve themselves and their organizations; they
view all experiences as learning experiences (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Griffith
(1999) stated that effective principals maintain clear goals and are consistently
immersed in various daily activities throughout the school. Strong principals are
involved in all aspects, including curriculum development, ensuring that teachers
are receiving adequate support, and empowering them to do an excellent job. This
plays an important part in the culture of the school because, when teachers are
motivated, student achievement increases (Fink & Resnick, 2001; King, 2002). The
importance of morale reflects the ability for principals and leaders to lead from the
heart (Nomura, 1999). Effective leaders have the compassion and the tenacity to
search for continuous school improvement.
Bolman and Deal (1997) stated that leadership behavior and culture are
reliant on the use of four distinct organizational frames or conceptions: the
structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frame. Each frame focuses on the idea of organizational thought in which four
diverse perspectives are exemplified.
According to Bolman and Deal, the structural frame “emphasizes goals,
specialized roles, and formal relationships” (p. 34). Structural leaders establish a
clear structure and maintain effective management systems in which the ability to
make effective and analytical decisions is crucial.
The next component involves Bolman and Deal’s human resource frame.
Bolman and Deal (1997) stressed that people and organizations need each other in
order to function effectively and successfully. This included the shaping of ideas
and energy to promote staff cohesiveness and moral (Lieberman, 1996). In order to
create and sustain an environment that is conducive to learning for all staff mem
bers, site leaders and principals should continue to develop and foster interpersonal
connections and relationships throughout the school year.
The human resource frame involves people’s skills, attitudes, energy, and
commitment as a vital resource capable of either making or breaking an enterprise
(Bolman & Deal, 1997). A standard human resource component is participation.
Participation enables workers more opportunities for involvement in the decision
making process. The human resource frame focuses on the idea of coaching and
mentoring others. Bolman and Deal contended that effective leaders invest in
people through the implementation of training opportunities and education. For
example, if teachers have not been properly trained with appropriate tools and
resources, student achievement may suffer. Therefore, it is essential that leaders
provide optimal professional development opportunities for their staff members.
The next component incorporates the political aspect. Bolman and Deal
(1997) asserted that effective leaders must understand the nature of politics and its
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overall effect on the organization and its members. The political perspective views
organizations as alive and screaming political arenas that host a complex web of
individuals and group interests. Building a power base through coalitions, allies,
and networks is paramount to the attainment and mobilization of crucial resources.
By becoming knowledgeable about particular reform initiatives, leaders may
ultimately be the underlying influence in determining whether the school receives
additional funding or resources.
The symbolic frame sees organizations as cultures (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
A cultural perspective involves deep metaphors that provide an image of the
community and bind people to a common purpose through shared meaning and
values. The means by which organizational cultures are fostered and maintained
include symbols, ceremonies, rituals, myths, and sagas, all of which communicate
the underlying values, beliefs, and orientations to the members of the organization.
The leadership theory surrounds the ideal of the symbolic frame.
Criticisms of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation systems, for the most part, have not lived up to their
avowed promise to change and improve the school system (Lofton, Hill, & Claudet,
1997). Scriven (1981) ridiculed teacher evaluation by saying that “teacher evalua
tion is a disaster. The practices are shoddy, and the principles are unclear” (p. 245).
The aforementioned forms of evaluations that are supporting teachers are in
no way perfect. Whether from the administrators or the teachers, there are criti
cisms of all evaluation practices. Three main criticisms are prevalent in the litera
ture: the summative process approach, the time dedicated to the evaluation process,
and the effectiveness of the evaluation.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Starting with the summative approach, the criticisms are that the models are
not structured to support the changing school environments, the frequency of each
evaluation is so limited that it fails to give an accurate indication of the true teacher
performance, and the practices emphasize accountability and are based on lessons
that are teacher directed, such as lecture, demonstration, and modeling mainly to
convey knowledge and cognitive skills to students (Buttram & Wilson, 1987;
Weiss & Weiss, 1998).
Time is an important component of the evaluation process. The time that the
administrator stays in the classroom and the time that the administrator spends with
the teacher on a one-on-one basis are crucial to an effective evaluation. Teachers,
veteran and new, need support from the administrator to be successful. The guide
lines for the time allotted on a summative evaluation are left to the discretion of the
administrator. The criticisms that arise from the literature are that the visits are brief
and the conferences are hurried to comply with school district policies and dead
lines (Darling-Hammond, 1986; Duke, 1993).
Effective evaluation practices are key to improving teacher practices. The
literature criticizes effective practices by saying that principals and teachers are
becoming frustrated with the conventional evaluation practices typically used to
determine teacher effectiveness and, thus, tenure and promotion (Brandt, 1996).
Evaluators do not link classroom performance with effective instructional practices
(Buttram & Wilson, 1987). Many practitioners and scholars recognize this practice
as a hollow ritual (Blumberg, 1980). Thomas and Bainbridge (2001) stated that,
although both organizational groups (i.e., teachers and administrators) profess the
value and necessity for evaluation, neither truly believes that it can be effectively
accomplished.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conclusion
Research indicates a correlation between teacher quality and student
achievement. Research also points to the emphasis that leadership plays on the
success of effective schools. Standards-based instruction, climate and culture, and
various school practices of effective schools are components that research has
found to support student achievement. Given the research questions, the researcher
designed a mixed-methods case study to determine school practices and programs
that have assisted in making schools successful.
The emergence of new trends in teacher evaluation with a focus on forma
tive evaluations rather than summative evaluations shows signs of promise in
improving teacher performance. In the past decade several evaluation approaches
have been developed with the primary goal of improving instruction. To achieve
excellence, the principal must engage all teachers in effective teacher evaluation
and supervision programs. The teacher evaluation instrument should be collabor-
atively developed, should be fluid, and should foster collegial interaction (Enz &
Searfoss, 1993). When teacher evaluation is at the formative level and when all
staff members are engaged in continuous professional development plans, evalua
tion is a more effective tool for instructional improvement.
A change is eminent for the future of the summative teacher evaluation
approach. Looking at the various methods of teacher evaluations, finding the one
that is effective for improving student achievement is the challenge. There are
positive aspects to each of these evaluative methods; however, it is important to
determine which evaluation process directly impacts student achievement. Assum
ing that the evaluation methods mentioned positively influence student achieve
ment, these components should be used to restructure the evaluation process. As
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools are changing, teacher evaluations must change and reflect this new
direction. There is a clear need for effective teacher evaluation policies and for
school boards and administrators to examine these policies with a view to improv
ing learning opportunities in classrooms.
Strengthening teacher evaluation is a worthwhile challenge for governors
and state policy makers to undertake. It holds promise not only to pro
fessionalized teaching but also to invest educators with greater information,
confidence, and ability to improve their instructional practices and to help
students achieve their fullest potential. (Goldrick, 2002, p. 2)
This chapter reported on research on teacher evaluation and teacher super
vision. Some research has shown a strong relationship between teacher quality and
student performance, but not enough convincing research exists detailing the link
between teacher evaluation and student performance. Missing from the research is
whether the formal system of teacher evaluation enhances teacher performance in
support of student learning. The next steps would be to continue the research to
better understand the complexity of teacher evaluation and its impact on student
achievement. This in-depth case study was designed to examine the current teacher
evaluation model used in a high-achieving school in California with the hope of
revealing other factors that may be related to teacher performance. The case study
explores the teacher evaluation process that is used at the school, along with an
investigation into school leadership, culture, and practices that impact teacher
performance in support of student achievement.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Teachers play an important role in today’s educational system. It is in the
best interest of students that teachers in classrooms are not only highly qualified
but are receiving the essential support that they need to help them to grow as
instructors and become successful in their performance so that their students have
the greatest opportunities to be successful. The purpose of the study was to deter
mine whether the teacher evaluation process impacts teacher performance in
support of student learning.
Research Questions
Four research questions were formulated to guide the study:
1. How is the evaluation process practiced at the school site?
2. How does the teacher evaluation process impact teacher behavior?
3. What factors exist at the school that positively or negatively impact
teacher practice?
4. How does the site leadership team contribute to improved teacher
practice?
In order to provide a clear and concise representation associated with the
teacher evaluation process and its relationship to student achievement, the case
study approach was implemented. Gall et al. (2003) highlighted that a case study
method provides researchers with a detailed and a plentiful aspect of an observa
tion. Qualitative case research studies are especially suited for “in-depth study of
instances of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the
participants involved in the phenomenon” (p. 127). Creswell (1998) provided the
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
underlying principles for the research design selection in this study. The rationale
for the selection of a qualitative design of the projected research study was as
follows: (a) The nature of the research questions lent themselves well to a qualitat
ive design study, (b) the factors explored necessitated a detailed view, (c) the study
took place within the relative natural context of a school, and (d) the researcher’s
role in the study was that of an active learner who was able to tell the story from a
participant’s perspective rather than an expert who passes judgments on partici
pants. “By concentrating on a single phenomenon or entity (case), this approach
aimed to uncover the interaction of significant factors characteristic of the
phenomenon” (Merriam, 1991, p. 44).
For the purpose of the study, one middle school was chosen to examine its
leadership, culture/climate, its approach to evaluation, and other practices that
affected student achievement. Due to the descriptive nature and systemic pro
cedures to discover nonquantifiable relationships between existing variables, a
mixed methodology consisting of a qualitative design component was favorable to
the intentions of this research study (Best & Kahn, 1998). This mixed methods case
study followed the guiding principles of scientific research in education, as the
researcher (a) posed significant questions in the survey and interview protocols,
(b) linked the research findings to relevant theory, (c) used methods that permitted
direct investigation of the questions through surveys, observations, and face-to-face
interviews, (d) provided a sound chain of reasoning, and (e) disclosed research to
encourage professional scrutiny and critique (Shavelson & Towne, 2002) from
other researchers conducting in-depth studies of the relationship between teacher
evaluation and student achievement.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Design
This case study was one of 15 thematic case studies addressing the question
of whether the teacher evaluation process had an impact on teacher performance,
which lead to improved student achievement. The doctoral students attended the
University of Southern California under the guidance of Dr. Stuart Gothold. The
cohort consisted of 15 students grouped into three subgroups of 4 to 6 students. The
groups were chosen according to the cities in which the students lived. The cohort
agreed on all the elements of the research design. The school at which research was
performed was chosen because it satisfied the criteria formulated by the dissertation
cohort: a school that met or exceeded its API target for the past 2 years, a school
where 95% of the teachers were “highly qualified” compliant through NCLB, and a
school where 40% or more of the students were receiving free or reduced-price
lunches. All cohort members met occasionally throughout the year and the sub
groups met on a weekly basis.
Creswell (2003) indicated that, to begin the data collection procedures for a
qualitative study, specific types of procedures could be used: interviews, observa
tions, surveys, and document analysis. This study used all four methods that
Creswell mentioned. Because the study included surveys, it was categorized as a
mixed methods study. In order to complete the data collection with abundant
information, the case study included many classroom observations; the researcher
visited the school on 10 occasions and acted in the role of the observer. Eleven
face-to-face interviews were completed, each lasting approximately 30 to 45 four
minutes; nine of the interviews were conducted with teachers. New teachers were
considered those who had been in the teaching profession for less than 5 years, and
veteran teachers were those in the teaching profession for 5 years or more. The
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other two interviews were with administrators at the school: one principal and one
assistant principal. In order to get a random selection of participants who signed
consent forms, the researcher chose one participant from each of the subject areas
represented to ensure that both new and veteran teachers were represented.
The data collection started in early January 2006. A letter was sent to the
principal identifying the specifics for data collection and including the timeline to
complete the study. The study took longer to complete than anticipated because of
the detailed documentation needed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the
university. The researcher spent 10 days on the Snicks Middle School (pseudonym)
campus. These 10 days included observation days, interview days, and days for
distribution of the survey forms. A pre-study meeting was held with principal of
school to discuss the purpose and protocol of the study. During this meeting the
researcher identified the reasons for choosing the school for the study and the
researcher’s timeline for data collection. The study began with the approval of the
principal but not until confidentiality issues had been addressed.
The interviewees consisted of veteran and new teachers, grade-level
teachers, department chairs, and site administrators. All interviewees were emailed
with the time, date, and location of their interviews. All interviewees were pre
sented the same questions in the same manner. Each interviewee was given ample
time to respond to each question. The interviews were tape recorded with the
permission of interviewees, and the researcher transcribed the tapes. Assurance of
strict confidentiality was frequently reiterated for the comfort of the interviewees.
In an effort to maintain integrity, close attention was paid to the consistency of the
interviews. While reviewing the transcriptions, recurring themes were identified,
based on a technique learned in a research methods course.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The surveys were distributed at a faculty meeting. At the direction of the
principal, the researcher attended one faculty meeting and administered the surveys.
The completed surveys were collected that day, while participants who needed
more time to complete the surveys were allowed to return them to the collection
boxes provided in a central location. Reminders were put in the daily bulletin with
the location of the boxes and the location where extra forms might be picked up.
The surveys were reviewed off campus, and the results were tallied and common
alities were documented.
The observations consisted of classroom visits, faculty meetings, tours of
the school, passing periods, after-school tutorials, extracurricular activities, lunch
time, on-campus observations prior to the start of school, and observations of the
school for up to 20 minutes after dismissal. The observations were documented
through field notes, the observational survey, and the check-off sheet that the
school used for walk-throughs.
To produce a well-developed mixed methods study, the researcher included
the following characteristics suggested by Creswell (1998):
Employed rigorous data collection procedures, using multiple forms of data
which included campus and classroom observation notes, staff surveys,
face-to-face individual interviews, and collection of various documentation
that revealed best practices of the school
Framed the study within the assumptions and characteristics selected by the
cohort, including natural school setting, data collection, and analysis of data
using expressive language to persuade by reason
Used a tradition of inquiry which included both quantitative and qualitative
approaches through surveys, interviews, and classroom observations
Began with a single focus on teacher evaluation and student achievement
Used detailed methods, a rigorous approach to data collection, data analysis
and report writing
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Analyzed data using multiple levels of abstraction by layering analysis from
particular to general
Wrote clearly, engagingly and persuasively, (pp. 21-22)
The persons chosen to participate in the study were “highly qualified”
teachers as defined under NCLB, and the administrators were those who were
currently working at the school. The researcher began the study by administering a
survey to the entire faculty. With the permission of the principal and under the
guidelines of the IRB, the researcher attended a morning faculty meeting, presented
the characteristics of the study, and verbally solicited teachers to fill out an
informational contact sheet, consent form, and survey. The survey responses were
returned separately to maintain anonymity. There were three boxes located on a
table near the exit of the room used to collect the documents. Each box was labeled
with the document title: Informational Contact Sheets (appendix A), Consent
Forms (appendix B), and Teacher Evaluation Survey (appendix C). With prior
approval from the principal, the teachers who decided to participate in the study
met for 30 minutes with the researcher. Those teachers who chose not to participate
stayed in the room and waited until data collection was complete. Another option
provided to the teachers at the meeting was to return completed surveys (or any of
the other documents administered) in the three boxes, which would remain in the
library for a week. Reminders regarding the location of the data collection boxes
and the deadline for document submission were included in the daily bulletins.
To complete the consent form took approximately 10, and the survey took
approximately 15 minutes to complete. The survey consisted of 30 questions, with
Likert-scale questions such as, “I see the administration’s supervision o f instruction
as non-evaluative and separate from the formal evaluation process” and “Describe
which experiences and/or activities have the greatest impact on student
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement at this school.” The topic of this case study held no anticipated risks
for the participants. However, since some respondents may have felt uncomfortable
about answering specific questions, it was explained that no one was obligated to
answer any question if it caused discomfort. The staff was assured verbally and in
writing that they would remain in the study even if they chose to not fully partici
pate. School staff was informed that there would be no personal benefit from their
participation but the potential benefit to society could lead to better practice of the
teacher evaluation process, which in turn could benefit students. Teachers were
notified that all information obtained for this study that could be identified with
them would remain confidential. In fact, no information revealed any identity. All
personal information, research data, and related records were coded, stored, and
secured by the researcher to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. Staff was
also given the investigator’s information for future reference as well as their rights
as research participants, which were specified in case they wanted to withdraw
from the study. Nonetheless, teachers who wanted to contribute to the study volun
teered by completing the contact sheet, which was used by the investigator to gain
their consent and to obtain information as to what form of data collection they were
willing to participate in by checking interviews or classroom observations. The
researcher used the returned contact sheets to identify teachers and conduct the
interviews and classroom observations.
Those who volunteered for interviews were audiotaped for 30 to 54 minutes
and asked 20 questions (appendix D) about the teacher evaluation process. The
interviews were conducted during site visits at a time and place convenient to the
participants. Most of the interviews were conducted in the teacher’s classrooms
during their conference period. Only 2 participants preferred to be interviewed
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
before or after school. Interview participants were not identified by name during
the interview, nor were their names used during transcription. Each participant
chose a pseudonym for the purpose of this study. The researcher planned to destroy
all records 3 years after acceptance of the dissertation.
During the interview, participants were asked to assess the teacher evalua
tion process as it pertained to the selected school site, as well as the supervision
process of the administrators. It should be noted that the researcher did not ask
participants to single out any individual by name, but instead asked about groups of
people, such as teachers or administrators. However, some interviewees chose to
identify some leaders by name and/or specific title. The participants did not seem
uncomfortable with the interview questions. If they were unfamiliar with the
question’s topic, they simply indicated that they did not know the answer. All
interviewed participants volunteered to be audio taped, and their responses were
kept confidential. As a small token of the researcher’s appreciation for participating
in the study, after each interview each participant received a $10 gift certificate to a
coffee shop, and at the end of the classroom observation a thank-you note was
presented, accompanied by a king-size candy bar.
Most teachers who agreed to classroom observations also agreed to be
interviewed, which strengthened this case study with triangulation. The one-time,
15-minute classroom observations were conducted without interaction with staff or
students, unless the teacher initiated a conversation. The researcher noted the
classroom culture, procedures, student engagement, lesson planning evidence,
student work posted, assessments, and instructional strategies. These standards are
identified in the CSTP.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The process for interviewing the administrators (a principal and an assistant
principal) was the same as the process for interviewing teachers; there were two
administrators. The administrator interviews consisted of nine questions (appendix
E). The interviews were also audio taped with the same stipulations as those for the
teacher interviews. The administrative consent forms were completed at the same
time as the interviews. Even though there were fewer questions for the adminis
trators, the interviews still lasted approximately 45 minutes, similar to the amount
of time of the teachers’ interviews. The school-wide observations included class
room visitations, lunch, before- and after-school routines, and a professional
development meeting.
The documents that were reviewed for the study included the SARC, Site
Plan for Student Achievement, meeting agendas and minutes, district evaluation
documents and procedures, a teacher-union contract on evaluation procedures, and
current forms used for teacher evaluations. Other data came from a review of the
professional development plan. The value of data collection instruments hinged on
the sampling methods, survey participation rates, and the reliability and validity of
the methods utilized. The researcher ensured that the surveys and the interview
protocol for this study measured items that focused on the topic of teacher evalua
tion and student achievement (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model that was used for this study is shown in Figure 1. The
context of this model stems from the accountability components that come from
NCLB and standards-based instruction. Followed by the credentialing process and
the “highly qualified” teacher, once in the system, the teacher evaluation document
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Context: -> Evaluation
Accountability
Standards Based
NCLB Stull
Portfolios
PAR
Improve
Teacher
Practices — >
Leadership Organizations
Culture/Climate of the School
Professional Development
Data-Driven Instruction
BTSA
Student
Learning
Figure 1. Conceptual model for the study.
is the only gauge of an effective teacher available, unless the teacher is personally
observed by someone other than the administrator who provides evaluative input.
Teacher evaluations consist of three various evaluation practices, as described in
chapter 2: the Stull evaluation, the portfolio, and the PAR. The support systems in
place to improve the struggling teacher are the PAR, professional development
opportunities, parental involvement, data-driven instruction, leadership organiza
tions, and the learning culture/climate of the school. Once teacher improvement is
accomplished, it is assumed that student achievement increases.
Sample and Population
The school was an urban middle school located in southern California.
Snicks Middle School (pseudonym) had not only met but had exceeded its API
target for the last 2 years. The school district was centrally located and served more
than 95,000 students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Approximately one
half of the school district students were English Language Learners (ELL) and over
40% of the students qualified for Title I assistance. Snicks Middle School was a
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Title I school where 86% of the 1,134 students were receiving free or reduced-price
lunches. The school was on a traditional school schedule, unlike most of the other
middle schools in the district, which were on a year-round schedule. According to
the SARC, the average class size was 24.5 students in English, 27.2 in mathe
matics, 30.5 in science, and 31.3 in social science. The student population reflected
that of an urban school but the school was located in an affluent area.
The demographic data of the students at Snicks reported in Table 1 were
taken from the 2004-2005 SARC:
Table 1
Demographic Data o f the Students in the Participating School
Characteristic and category n %
Grade level
6 404
7 361
8 369
Total 1,134
Racial/ethnic category
African American 192 16.90
American Indian 3 0.03
Asian 158 13.90
Filipino 21 1.90
Hispanic/Latino 13 1.10
White non-Hispanic 154 13.60
School Site Selection Criteria
The criteria for school site selection that were set by the cohort were as
follows: (a) 95% of the teachers “highly qualified” compliant through NCLB,
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(b) 40% or more of the students receiving free or reduced-price lunches, and
(c) met or exceeded the API target for the past 2 years.
Instrumentation
Gall et al. (2003) stated that, by using a variety of instruments to collect the
data, the findings will be more valid through triangulation. Triangulation of data
sources and analytical perspectives increases accuracy and credibility of the find
ings (Patton, 1987). Triangulation in this study consisted of collecting data that
represented several views of the same situation. Triangulation was used to analyze
the data and draw conclusions from the gathered data.
All subgroups in the research cohort used a conceptual model that outlined
the process and raised the researchers’ knowledge of their personal biases. Merriam
(2001) stated that, in a qualitative study, the investigator is the primary instrument
for gathering and analyzing data and must be aware of any personal biases and how
they may influence the investigation. Merriam further stated that, due to this reality,
the researcher must be sensitive to the context in which the study takes place while
being sure to include all the variables within it.
The administrative interview questions (appendix E), the teacher interview
questions (appendix D), the observation survey (appendix F), the teacher evaluation
survey (appendix C), and review of various documents were the instruments that
were designed and used in this case study.
Interviews
The interview protocol was initially created by a sub-group of the university
thematic dissertation group on teacher evaluation and was subsequently modified
by the entire group of 15 doctoral students. The questions were designed to elicit
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the most in-depth answers to the study’s four research questions. The interview
questions were also organized by their corresponding research questions to aid in
the data analysis process. Additional questions designed for school administrators
were also formulated. The design of the interview protocol was open ended or
semistructured. Creswell (1998) suggested using a protocol of four or five pages in
length, with approximately five open-ended questions.
The teachers and administrators who participated in the interviews spoke
about the impact of the teacher evaluation process as it exists at the school. They
also spoke to the evaluation process that was used at the school. The interviews
were taped with the permission of the interviewees and then transcribed by the
researcher. The tapes were always kept in a locked location and will be destroyed 3
years after this dissertation has been approved.
The teachers were categorized and referred to in the study as T l, T2, T3,
and so forth. Temporary and new teachers serving 0-2 years were categorized as
T1-T3, permanent contracted teachers serving 3-5 years were categorized as T4-
T6, and veteran teachers serving more than 6 years were categorized as T7-T9. The
administrators were designated API (assistant principal) and P (principal).
Review o f Documents
Another instrument used to investigate the case was a form for the review of
specific documents (appendix G). This instrument organized the documents and
provided space for the researcher’s comments and pertinent notes. The types of
documents reviewed were teacher-union contracts, professional development plans,
the school plan, evaluation schedule and forms, master schedule, student handbook,
and parent handbook. These documents were used to get an in-depth view of the
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
climate as well as the routines that were observed at the school site. By using a
collection of various instrumentations from multiple sources, triangulation was
achieved to allow the researcher to use various methods of investigation to connect
the findings in a cohesive comprehensible fashion.
Observational Survey
The observational survey was used to gather data for the case study at the
Snicks Middle School site. The development of the observational survey was a
team effort and the assignment was split among four researchers. Once the ques
tions were compiled, the four-member team met to combine the questions into a
one-page observational tool consisting of 25 questions. All questions on the
observational tool were designed to be answered yes or no and included space for
comments. The team created a numbering and notation system for each question
concerning its order so that the data were easy to identify after the observation was
completed. The tool was brief and focused, and it encompassed all aspects of the
school. The observational survey enabled each case study researcher to create a
body of data that added to the generalizability of the 15 case studies. The observa
tional survey’s purpose was to address questions that encompassed the school
experience as a whole, capturing the initial moment anyone walked on the campus
to the moment the person left. It also served to gain a greater understanding of the
school, its culture, the teacher evaluation process, and the practices that lead to
student achievement.
Teacher Evaluation Survey
The teacher evaluation survey was developed by a group of doctoral
students outside of the current cohort, and was based on Ebmeier’s (2003) teacher
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
survey used to illustrate a link between teacher efficacy and commitment. Both
teacher and administrator versions were created for this study for collecting data
from both perspectives. Included in the survey were statements in the following
domains: background information, policy, teacher evaluation, ongoing teacher
supervision, school efforts, school culture, and personal efficacy/commitment to
teaching. Responses to each statement (with the exception of statements in the
Background Information section) were based on a 4-point Likert-type scale of 0 =
strongly disagree, 1 - disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree (Gall et al.,
2003).
A pilot study the teacher version of the survey was conducted by
researchers outside of the researcher’s cohort, gathering responses from 11
respondents. The data were tabulated using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS®) version 11.5. Four types of statistical tests were performed on the
data to determine validity and reliability. First, descriptive statistics were produced
to calculate the frequencies and means of each item answered. Second, an explora
tory factor analysis test was conducted to identify potential factors between strong
self-efficacy (Q48 = agree) and items regarding perceptions of evaluation and
supervision of instruction. The rotated component matrix indicated that the vari
ables loaded in two separate components, as shown in Table 2. The thematic
subgroup found that these results suggested that two factors linked teacher self-
efficacy with their perceptions of both evaluation and supervision: personal beliefs
(component 1 = Q12, Q24, and Q35) and administrative responsiveness (compon
ent 2 = Q11 and Q33). Third, a reliability coefficient was calculated for all items,
yielding alpha = .8912 (based on 8 cases in which respondents evaluated all state
ments). Fourth, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for all items;
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
Rotated Component Matrix o f Perceptions o f Evaluation and Supervision o f
Instruction
Item
Component
1 2
111 receive timely feedback following my observations. .027 .979
12 When an administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks
for things upon which we agreed. .924 -.001
24 I am confident in my administration’s ability to monitor
my instructional practice. .824 .303
33 I am comfortable going to my administrators for support. -.043 .979
35 1 believe in the goals and objectives of this school. .904 -.389
although many items showed strong positive correlations, the items shown in Table
3 were exceptionally significant.
The results of the field tests suggested that the survey met the standards of
validity and reliability and affirmed that the data demonstrated connections among
self-efficacy, school culture, leadership, and the effects of teacher supervision and
evaluation on teacher practice. Even though reliability and generalizability play a
minor role in qualitative inquiry, validity is seen as strength of qualitative research.
Creswell (2003) suggested eight strategies that enhance validity: triangulation,
member checking, rich thick description, clarifying biases, presenting negative
information, prolonged time in the field, peer debriefing, and an external auditor.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3
Results for the Sample Research Questions
Item 1 Item 2 sig.
5 I believe in the goals and
objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation.
5 I believe in the goals and
objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation.
6 I am satisfied that my site
administrators are carrying
out the district’s policy on
teacher evaluation with
integrity.
17 The administrator frequently
observes my classroom.
17 The administrator frequently
observes my classroom.
22 I see the administration’s
supervision of instruction as
separate and non-evaluative.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
7 My administrator frequently .832 .001
observes my classroom for
the purpose of evaluation.
24 I am confident in my .858 .001
administration’s ability to
monitor my instructional
practice.
11 I receive timely feedback .914 .000
following my observations.
22 I see the administration’s .866 .001
supervision of instmction as
separate and non-
evaluative.
39 I am satisfied with the .873 .001
professional competency
and leadership ability of the
administration.
3 9 1 am satisfied with the .932 .000
professional competency
and leadership ability of the
administration.
9 I see my administrator’s .804 .003
implementation of the
teacher evaluation policies
as part of my professional
growth.
13 I am confident in my .865 .001
administrator’s ability to
evaluate my instructional
practice.
16 I believe that my participa- ..804 .003
tion in the teacher evalua
tion process at this school
has led to my professional
growth.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (Continued)
Item 1 Item 2 sig.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
25 I believe that my
administration’s supervision
of instruction improves my
instructional practice.
35 I believe in the goals and
objectives o f this school.
35 I believe in the goals and
objectives of this school.
39 1 am satisfied with the
professional competency and
leadership ability of the
administration.
19 I receive meaningful .909 .000
feedback following an
evaluation.
23 I am aware of specific .830 .002
things that administrators
look for when visiting my
classroom.
24 I am confident in my .898 .000
administration’s ability to
monitor my instructional
practice.
36 The values of this school .829 .003
are consistent with my own
values.
37 The goals and objectives of .924 .000
this school have contributed
to its improvement.
17 The administrator .873 .000
frequently observes my
classroom.
52 The influence of a student’s
home environment can be
overcome by good teaching.
35 I believe in the goals and
objectives of this school.
.821 .004
Results for the Research Questions
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, How is the evaluation process practiced at the
school site? This question was answered by analyzing relevant school documents
and data collected via interviews. The two documents that were analyzed were the
teacher contracts and the district’s documentation of the evaluation process. This
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
review enabled the researcher to examine the questions that were asked of the
teachers prior to the evaluation. The interviews assisted in determining the current
evaluation processes in place at the study site. Asking probing questions of the
administrator, the researcher learned what evaluation models are used at the school
and identified the evaluation processes. The probing questions also identified the
time required to complete an evaluation, the preparation needed for the evaluation,
and how professional development played a part in the evaluation process. The
interviews of teachers provided insight about the evaluation process from their
perspective. Teachers’ responses provided additional information regarding the
difference in the administrator’s behavior during observations and evaluations.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, How does the teacher evaluation process impact
teacher behavior? Reviewing documents such as the evaluation worksheet,
conducting interviews, and administering the survey provided data to answer this
question. By reviewing the evaluation worksheet the researcher determined how
useful the tool was, the format of the observation worksheet, and how much space
was available for comments or critiques. During interviews with the administration,
ramifications of poor evaluations were discussed, as well as the benefits of
excellent evaluations. Interviews with the teachers identified various strategies that
the administration used that had been successful and those that had not worked.
The interviews also provided information on the frequency of the observations
prior to the formal evaluation. The researcher utilized surveys to provide a wide
range of opinions in a short amount of time. The responses to survey items pro
vided information on the teachers’ perceptions of the teacher evaluation process.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What factors exist at the school that positively
or negatively impact teacher practice? This question was answered by conducting
interviews, reviewing documents, and analyzing data gathered via the surveys.
During the interviews, the researcher used probing questions to ascertain the posi
tive and negative effects that evaluation had on teacher practices. The interviews
identified the strategies utilized at the school, including the opportunities for pro
fessional development, to improve the impact on teacher practice. The documents
reviewed included notes that the administrator had produced after the in-class
observation. These notes served as insight regarding the impact of the teacher
practice, the frequency of communication, the type of feedback, and the form of
communication that was used. While continuing with the interviews, additional
data were gathered on the items that affected teacher practice on the campus, such
as culture, leadership, student achievement. The surveys provided an immediate
sense of the positive or negative practices that existed with the teacher evaluation
as well as the other practices that influenced teaching practices.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, How does the site leadership contribute to
improved teacher practice? Reviewing the SARC, the Single School Plan, staff
resources, organizational charts, minutes of meetings, parent newsletters, and other
artifacts from school events revealed the story of the school and highlighted areas
for further research (Bassey, 1999; Silverman, 1997). Reviewing the documents
provided the researcher with a global picture of an effective school. In order to
have effective teacher evaluations, strong school leadership is imperative. Leaders
must form and shape cultures in order to facilitate and foster communication
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
among the members in the organization (Deal & Peterson, 1999). The review
included a review of the professional development opportunities and the link
between teacher evaluation and the organization’s leadership. The interviews
allowed the administrator to share their vision and leadership style. The researcher
compared the data collected during the interviews to observations and found con
gruence between the attitudes and the observed behaviors. The interviews with the
teachers presented ideas on the leadership style and how that impacted teacher
practice.
Data Analysis
According to Patton (1987), “There is no clear point at which data
collection stops and the analysis begins” (p. 101). The data analyses progressed
according to the step-by-step version derived from Creswell (1998): data managing,
reading/memoing, describing, classifying, interpreting, and representing the data
visually. Each of these headings allowed the data to be described in a uniform and
clear fashion.
Data managing involved creating and organizing the files of data. The
interviews were transcribed by the researcher. These transcriptions were arranged
into two groups: administrators and teachers. The researcher continued with the
next step by reading/memoing the transcriptions. Margin notes were written and
transferred into the computer, where recurring comments emerged and themes
began to be identified. This was the process where detailed analysis and coding the
information into chunks generated a description of the setting and the people while
arranging them into categories or themes for analysis. This coding process and all
of the steps from Creswell (1998) continued with anonymity throughout the
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
process. Through the words of the interviewees, the researcher began to describe
the case in its context using rich, thick, text. The use of thick contextual detailed
description is a major strength of qualitative research. The researcher provided a
detailed narrative that gives a sense of time, place, and culture within the organiza
tion of the study. Thick descriptions assisted in understanding the perspectives of
members of the organization (Patton, 1987). These descriptions were directly
interpreted by the researcher, developing naturalistic generalizations while utilizing
tables or figures to present the results clearly.
Conclusion
The data collection utilized four methods: interviews, surveys, document
analysis, and observations. Qualitative designs lend themselves to much interpreta
tion, which in turn reveals that there is no “right way” to analyze the data (Tesh,
1990). The purpose of the study was to identify the teacher evaluation process that
was used at a high-performing school and included the other factors and practices
that impacted teacher practice. The captured data are presented in greater detail as
emerging themes are identified.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
It was a cold windy day in January, and in front of Snicks Middle School a
female adult appeared to be waiting for something. Within 2 minutes, four yellow
school buses turned the comer and stopped in front of the school. As the students
exited the bus, they were bundled in jackets or navy blue sweatshirts; some brave
students were just wearing their uniform: a white polo shirt with khaki pants. The
adult was supervising the new arrivals, greeting them as they scurried onto the
campus. There was a variety of student interactions. Two boys attempting to start a
game of tag walked by briskly, eyeing the supervising adult for fear that they would
get stopped. A group of four girls exited the bus and walked directly to the benches
in front of the school. They sat down and began to pull papers from their back
packs. Others who exited the bus were laughing as if someone had just told a joke
to the remainder of students on the bus. This was the beginning of a regular day at
Snicks Middle School.
Snicks Middle School was considered a successful, high-achieving school
because of its increased performance on state tests and its accomplishments on state
and federal targets. There were many questions to be addressed to discover why
this was a success school. Was it due to the teacher evaluation process? Was it the
leadership? Was it the daily structure? Throughout this study, many avenues were
explored, such as the teacher evaluation process, leadership practiced at the site,
school culture, and professional development, to name a few. This process revealed
many aspects of this school that could not be seen through observations alone.
Instmments, such as two surveys, document analysis and review, observations, and
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interviews, led to the secrets that could be shared with middle schools that strive to
be successful.
The data collection took place over a 10-day period at the Snicks Middle
School site. The four methods of data collection triangulated the data, thereby
reinforcing the validity of these results. This study was presented in a qualitative
manner, using rich, thick descriptions where possible to convey the feel of the
school.
This chapter reports findings in the context of the research questions.
Eleven interviews were conducted with site personnel. The interviews were
conducted on campus with two site administrators and nine classroom teachers.
The teachers all chose to do the interviews during their conference period, which
was 80 minutes long. Interviews lasted from 30 to 54 minutes. Thirty of the 46
teachers at Snicks chose to respond to the two surveys and 9 of those teachers were
selected for the interviews.
The interviewed teachers were categorized and are referred to in the study
as T l, T2, T3, and so forth. Temporary and new teachers serving 0-2 years were
categorized as T1-T3, permanent contracted teachers serving 3-5 years were cate
gorized as T4- T6, and veteran teachers serving more than 6 years were categorized
as T7-T9. Table 4 specifies each teacher’s discipline. The administration is desig
nated as API (assistant principal) and P (principal). The results of the teacher
evaluation survey and the observation survey are cited where applicable, and the
completed surveys with results are located in appendix H and appendix I.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4
Teacher Interviewees Categorized by Years o f Service and Subject Area Taught
Teacher
Years of service Subject area
0-2 3-5 > 6 Other3 Science Math History English
T1 X X
T2 X X
T3 X X
T4 X X
T5 X X
T6 X X
T7 X X
T8 X X
T9 X X
aOther includes Physical Education, Foreign Language, Music, Arts, and
Woodshop.
Neighborhood/Community
Snicks Middle School was a magnet school nestled at the end of a quiet cul-
de-sac in an urban area of a southern California city. There was a brick fence across
the street that encased a large gated condominium complex. Parking was difficult to
find. The staff parking lot was completely full; I had to park illegally during my
visit. Each morning, the east side of the street opposite the school was lined with
cars because of the university students who took advantage of the free parking. The
university was located 0.2 miles from Snicks and, occasionally, as T2 commented,
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“The students attend walking field trips to either get acquainted with the campus or
to attend planned functions.” The north side of the campus was a residential area;
however, the houses did not face the street where the school was located. There
were fences that faced the school, enclosing residential backyards. The west side of
the campus had a fenced-in riverbed, making the school relatively secluded from
major street traffic.
Campus
The school was esthetically pleasing to the eye. The school was very clean
and had an air that it had been physically updated and painted. The outside of the
building had fresh light blue paint and the perimeter of the school was trash free.
All of the teachers on the observation survey stated that the campus was clean and
well kept; the survey agreed with my observations. This school was unusually
large, compared to the other middle schools in the district, and boasted two beauti
ful fields with green grass where children could play. There were modular bunga
lows located on the campus; however, all were situated on concrete and none of the
grass was compromised because of the bungalows.
Socioeconomic Status of Attending Students
Many of the students who attended Snicks were bused in from many parts
of the city to receive, according to the principal, “an educational experience that
challenges the students to master the basics and explore unlimited possibilities in
technology, fine arts and foreign language.” There were six neighboring middle
schools in the area, and selected applicants from those schools were bused to
Snicks Middle School. These students who were bused would normally attend the
neighboring middle school, in their area; nevertheless, children from all over the
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
city applied to Snicks. Students who applied to Snicks had to keep in mind that
there were certain requirements (explained in detail in the Student Accountability
section of this chapter). Snicks was a Title I school, which meant that the govern
ment provides assistance to students in public schools with high numbers or
percentages of poor children to ensure that all children meet challenging state
academic content and student academic achievement standards. Research has found
that poverty is the primary reason why children differ in ways that affect school
performance (EdSource, 2002). Poor children are more likely than non-poor
children to give birth during their teen years, to suffer developmental delay and
damage, and to drop out of school (Miranda, 1991). At Snicks, 86.1% of the
students received free or reduced-price lunches. Because of the demographic and
socioeconomic make-up, Snicks was placed in a category of subsidy by the Federal
government. Despite the demographic and socioeconomic challenges facing these
students, Snicks had “beat the odds” by reaching their state and federal goals.
Transportation
Thirteen regular buses and six Special Education buses transported children
from all over the city to Snicks Middle School. Of the 1,104 students who attended
Snicks, 912 were bused, 142 students were brought to school by their parents, and
40 walked to school. The principal commented, “There are only 80 neighborhood
children in all, and we have 40 of them. Our challenge is to get the other 40 to
attend our school.”
One thing I want to point out is, people think of Snicks’s very nice location
but the reality is that 25% of our kids come from [an urban school], 25% of
our kids come from [an urban school], 18% come from [an urban school],
12% come from [an urban school], and 20% come from other. Other could
be the city bused or the parents drop them off here. (API)
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The reason that API pointed this out was because the neighborhood where
Snicks was located was an affluent area, near a university; most people would
assume that the clientele would be from the neighborhood. However, it was the
opposite: Snicks lacked the neighborhood children, so students were bused in from
the middle schools located in urban areas. These contributing schools were located
in urban, less affluent areas, and those schools had been participating in program
improvement, meaning that they had not met their state and federal goals for at
least 4 years.
By 3:30 the bell rings, at 3:37, say about nine of the buses are loaded and
waiting to be told they can leave. Then the last four buses come in after that.
By 3:45 there is nobody out in the fields. So in 15 minutes like 900 hundred
kids loaded onto buses in an orderly fashion and they’re lined up. That takes
structure and practice. Believe me, when school first started, it was total
chaos, but training the teachers and the students to do this more efficiently
made the difference. (P)
The majority of the students were bused to Snicks Middle School. For
Snicks to be able to load 630 students in 7 minutes and the other 240 in 8 minutes
was evidence that the structure in place was effective.
Students
“And it’s because of your hard work here that Snicks is so successful;
remember that as you do your work throughout the day. Have a great day!” These
were the principal’s last words each day, heard over the school-wide intercom,
before the students started their day. The students at Snicks had very high expecta
tions from the principal, from their teachers, and themselves. “The students are our
number priority here, it is because of them that we are here,” commented the assist
ant principal. Students at Snicks wore a school uniform, had to maintain a grade
point average of 2.0, took a minimum of 1 year of foreign language and/or Fine
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Arts, and used a daily planner that required them to write daily agendas and home
work for all classes. Students attended a block schedule in which they took eight
classes instead of the usual six or seven, allowing them to take foreign language
and/or fine arts, receive additional help in reading and mathematics, and take
additional elective/exploratory courses. Because the students took four classes
every other day on a block schedule, there was allowed time for in-depth study of
course material and hands-on learning experiences, without the confusion of
attending all eight classes every day.
The grade point average requirement for students was 2.0. Students who did
not maintain this grade point average were put on academic probation. That is, the
students had to attend an intervention class until their grades improved. This inter
vention took place after school, from 3:30 to 4:40; therefore, the students rode
home on later buses.
I like that we keep students in check, and right away when they are having
trouble in my class or any other class for that matter, we refer them to the
student center to get help. It keeps the F’s down and the parents informed,
you know, no surprises. (T8)
All students, in every classroom and while on campus, were held to
behavioral expectations called the six B’s: (a) Be on time, (b) be in uniform, (c) be
respectful, (d) be responsible, (e) be safe, and (f) be prepared to learn. A climate of
“school is business” was strengthened by the agreement that every student would
be in uniform every day as well as bring a planner. Students who consistently
abided by the six B’s were treated to special activities on “Student Incentive Days.”
Students who did not follow the six B’s lost points and had to either perform
school/community service to make up points or risk exclusion from the Student
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Incentive Days. Students were reminded daily of the six B’s through a Character
Education program and morning intercom announcements made by the principal.
The overview is mandatory uniforms so when the parents come to sign their
kids up to go here, there is a compact they complete that says that their kids
are going come in school uniform. We have kids who can’t afford uniforms,
so we give them one. It helps that the parents sign this compact so that,
when there is a problem, we can refer to the compact. (T3)
I rarely have uniform infractions in my classes, thank goodness, but each
morning we do uniform checks and you have to do them because the
principal comes in or the AP’s to check if you did it, so you gotta. (T5)
For school uniforms, the school had money through an Assistance League
program, to which anyone could apply, as well as a church that met on campus on
Sundays and gave $1,000 a year to buy uniforms for students. The school was able
to buy a uniform for a child or the school would loan uniforms to students who
came to school not in uniform. The school used the money from the church to keep
the uniforms stocked so that there were always some available. The school had a
washer and dryer in the physical education area. The recreation aides washed the
clothes daily and then two PTA parents and a community worker ran the uniform
room and folded the clothes.
Climate
As I approached the office for my appointment with the principal, I passed
the band class and could hear brass instruments being played off key. As I con
tinued through the building, most of the classroom doors were open. I heard the
sounds of teachers lecturing. As I quickly looked in, I could see students, quiet and
paying attention. There were no roaming students; all students were in their class
rooms. When I arrived to the office, the first thing that I saw was a huge banner that
stretched from one end of the office to the other that read, “Welcome to Snicks
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Middle School.” Each section of the office counter was labeled with hanging signs
that implied that one should stand in a line: banker, enrollment, readmits, parent
visitor check-in, attendance, enrollment clerk, and substitute check-in. I did not see
one that said information or principal or even secretary, so I stood in the banker
line and waited for the banker to assist me. The office was not a social location;
students and teachers came in, took care of their business, and exited quickly. The
banker greeted me warmly and I told the banker that I had an appointment with the
principal at 9:30 a.m. The banker told the secretary, who was about 10 feet away,
and the secretary made a telephone call, got up, and walked with me another 5 feet
to the principal’s office.
This scenario reflected the climate on campus, which was quiet in the hall
ways and throughout the campus when classes were in session. The orderly fashion
around the campus was an expectation that the principal referred to his campus: “I
believe the most successful organizations and institutions are run much like a suc
cessful business and this is no exception, I think of our day as business as usual.”
The interviews agreed with the “business as usual” attitude, and so did my observa
tions; however, the underlying feelings were that to keep the business running
effectively required hard work and extra time.
School climate affects my teaching practice tremendously. I am a new
teacher here, and I feel like I have big shoes to fill. Everyone says “business
as usual.” It may be for them, but to make sure my students are learning,
coming in quietly, making sure I have my CW and HW and all the other
requirements that are needed is hard work. It takes hard work to be the
number 1 and we are, but it’s hard work, it’s hard work. (Tl)
We have a great climate here, everything is clear, cut and dry, no room for
misunderstandings because it is “by the book.” I like that. You know what
you are supposed to do, and we are expected to do it, even if it means
coming early or staying after school, we all stay after school late and no one
complains because we are used to it. Being at Snicks is not easy, but we
don’t have any openings, go figure. (T3)
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
We are all about achievement right now, and our climate is one of success
and taking care of business. I am anxious most of the time. I’m already, you
know, a seasoned teacher, gotten awards, mentored a gazillion years, and so
forth, and I’m nervous about doing a good job. Each day, I have to rise to
the occasion and here I am 20 years into it. The climate of the school is “we
are successful, we turned this school around,” and it makes me really
nervous. I kinda want to go to some place like [the name of another middle
school] for a while, you know, just because . . . there’s so much work here.
(T8)
As 60% of the teachers reported, the climate dealt with business as usual
and the running of the school as a business; the other 40% stated that the climate
was believing in the students and their capability to achieve.
The climate here at this school is all about kids being number 1 and how
kids learn, and communicating with kids, and making sure that you know
what action plan’s in place, for this to happen, you gotta believe that they
can do it. (Tl)
I think the core of our climate here it is just believing in the kids. I honestly
think that. I mean, there are systems on how we do things but, in addition to
the systems, the belief that kids can achieve is why we are here. (T3)
The teachers here, all in all, I mean, there’s obviously exceptions, are very
student-centered and I think that makes such a difference that most of the
teachers here really love kids and want the kids to do well and are willing to
help the kids. That wasn’t necessarily my experience at my old site. There
was a lot of like, “Ooh, they’re icky or this kid bugs me.” There’s certainly
kids that get on your nerves but I don’t hear people talking about that.
Mostly it’s either nothing or kinda of funny stories or whatever. Everybody
on the staff right down the line likes kids. I mean, I know it sounds obvious
if you are going work in a school, but it’s not. I mean, you work in a school
and I am sure you know that you can hear people and think, “They’re a lot
of jobs out there, sweetheart, go take one.” (T5)
I think that’s what makes this school successful—our climate here is that
people really want the best for the kids, are willing to be open-minded and
kind of try, willing to communicate, willing to like give up, you know, stuff
like giving up class time to do the all-school writes. And it’s just not once in
a while that we give up much of our class time for these writing sessions. I
believe that all my students can learn and so do all the teachers here; other
wise, I don’t think you’d be allowed to stay; you can’t have any “nay-
sayers.” (T8)
During observations, students were on task. On the student work, the papers
were not only graded with percentiles or grades; they had words of encouragement.
For example, a few read, “I knew you could do it!” or “Great Job!” or “Outstanding
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Again!” or “I am Proud of you!” These words on the papers reinforced the belief
that each teacher had in their students.
Teacher Collaboration
There were various ways that teachers collaborated at Snicks; it was a
component that made the school successful. All of the teachers, according to the
Teacher Evaluation Survey, reported that they were encouraged to collaborate on a
regular basis. Some teachers commented that it was an important part of communi
cation and cohesion that kept teachers feeling connected. All of the interviewees
stated that collaboration was an integral part of the school’s achievements and that
it impacted teacher practice in an encouraging way. Evidence of the importance of
collaboration was shown in interviews.
It [collaboration] has impacted a lot, so I don’t feel quite so alone. I am a
new teacher and I like that we have planned meetings with our colleagues
because it makes us plan together. I was a little nervous at first because I
didn’t know anyone, but now there is no choice, and I like that. (T2)
T2 added that, with the help of the coaches and the teachers, she was able to
get acclimated to the school. They spoke to her about the important information
that she needed to make her first days at Snicks easier. The policies and structures
that were so essential to the school’s dynamics were laid out carefully and clearly
so that there were no assumptions on how things were done at the school. The
grade-level teachers and teachers in her department helped her with various struggl
ing students, alternative assessments, analyzing student work and planning lessons
in the format the district and school required. The quotes continue about the bene
fits of collaboration and the empowering effects it had on the teachers.
It’s the reason I’m staying. My department rocks so hard! Collegiality, it’s
all about the way that we work together. Our department is so on the same
page. We help each other. We nurture each other. (T3)
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
With respect to the history department, we are very much a team. Our steer
ing committee, which is our leadership group, [is] very team oriented, and
we are tied together through various things like mission statements. It’s
very empowering and it says a lot about who we are. So collaboration is a
huge thing here. (T6)
Oh, I love sharing. It’s awesome. To me, it’s like I had a kid who I was
having behavior problems with and we talked about it at one of our grade
level-meetings, which thank God our grade-level meetings have gone back
in the direction of talking about kids, like things that are working and things
that aren’t working. (T7)
I am a lot more cohesive with my counterparts than at my old site. I wish
that I could have had this sooner in my career. I am like, there’s three of us,
and so that creates diversity but we are also very diverse in our approaches,
and we all kinda take like, “How are you doing this, man, I’m having a hard
time with this. We would talk to each other before school and that kind of
thing. Like, if you were having a challenge or something. I love it; I love it
a lot. (T8)
Findings by Research Questions
Research Question 1: The Evaluation Process
Research question 1 asked, How is the evaluation process practiced at the
school site? The purpose of this question was to identify the evaluation process at
Snicks Middle School to evaluate teachers. There were two forms of evaluation
available to the teachers. The first was the formal evaluation according the Stull
Act, as required by the district/state and supported by the collective bargaining unit.
The second was a pilot program, which Snicks had been using for 2 years, that was
standards based, using the CSTP. This alternative was not supported by the
collective bargaining unit and none of the teachers interviewed for this study had
chosen that method of evaluation. Thus, that process is not reported in the study.
It was prevalent through the interviews that the teachers preferred the tradi
tional Stull form of evaluation; 100% of the interviewees used the traditional Stull
for their evaluation. It was noted that the reasons for choosing this evaluation rather
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than the pilot program was that it was supported by the collective bargaining agree
ment, as indicated in Education Code § 44664.5, and it was what teachers were
used to. However, the teachers stated that it lacked the substance to give a true
representation of the teacher’s ability in the classroom.
We have a Stull evaluation that was put in place by the district. It is very
district driven. There is a handbook that goes along with it, and any ques
tions teachers have really could be answered by looking in the evaluation
handbook that was created eons ago. It’s by the book, but it’s not that good
to let you know how you are doing, very generic. (T5)
I’m involved to the extent that I determine my own goals and objectives. I
also think that there is . . . I’m pretty sure. I’ve never chosen it but there is a
sort of an alternative evaluation method that the district developed. It’s a
pilot program but it’s not supported by the union and there’s no pro
tection—not that I’ll need it b u t. . . You know, it depends on what site
you’re at, but I was at a school where we were invited, in fact, strongly
urged to pursue an alternative evaluation in lieu of an evaluation and I
thought that was really cool. I didn’t take it. My administration tried to push
it, but it takes a lot of work, but that’s out there for people that want to do it
and I think that’s great. (T8)
Ninety-four percent of the teachers surveyed stated that they were aware of
and understood the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. I described the
evaluation process at Snicks and how it mirrored the Stull evaluation process
(California Education Code §§ 44660-44665). The evaluation that was discussed
was the Stull evaluation process as adopted by the district. According to the state
law of California, the Stull Act was a uniform system implemented for evaluation
in 1971. The district where Snicks was located used the structure that followed the
Stull Bill legislation (California Education Code § 446620) in its teacher evaluation
procedure.
In September a meeting took place in the library where administrators met
with the teachers who were to be evaluated. During this meeting the administrators
went over the whole process with the teachers. The administrators discussed all
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
forms (see appendix J for goals and objectives and appendix K for the Certificated
Instructional Personnel Evaluation form) and the protocol that would be used
throughout the year. Once the details of each process were explained, the teachers
were able to choose which process was best suited for them. The administrators
explained that evaluations of employees were made on a continuing basis at least
once a year for temporary and probationary personnel and at least once every other
year for employees with permanent status as specified in the Education Code.
Teachers who received an evaluation were given a copy of their evaluation within
7 days from the day that the evaluation was given. According to the survey in the
present study, 94% of the teachers agreed that the administrators gave meaningful
feedback in a timely manner. The administrators explained that the purpose of
evaluation was to improve classroom instruction. However, when interviewing the
API, her response about the purpose of evaluation contradicted what was told to
the teachers.
When an evaluation is based on agreed criteria, applied equally to all, and
fairly and appropriately utilized, then it is valid. The thing is the evaluation
that exists doesn’ t focus on improving the teacher's classroom practices',
we are judging their performance and not backing it up with the appropriate
feedback. What I mean is, I know what good teaching is but I don’t know
everyone’s in-depth content, so the teaching may be fine but I don’t know if
what teacher is teaching is correct. (API, emphasis by researcher)
This contradiction from the API came from the underlying message that revealed
struggle with the present evaluation system. According to her statement, the evalua
tion lacks the proper feedback to actually improve the teacher’s practice.
At the beginning of the year, the teacher began the evaluation process by
receiving a Goals and Objectives worksheet (appendix J), which had six sections.
Section I described the district “goals and objectives” as prescribed in California
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Education Code § 44662[b] 1-4, and explicitly included the law requirements of the
Stull Act for the implementation of teacher evaluation.
We had a first meeting where we talked about goals and objectives and how
to write them. Then we had to go to write our goals and objective. Then you
turn them in to your evaluator. And so then I handed mine into [principal’s
name] and he was going to give them back to us with corrections, but in all
honesty he decided it was easier for him just to correct them for us. So he
just corrected it for us, and I agree with that. Like, instead of me going to
him and back and forth, like it’s really like of persnickety verbiage stuff,
and so for him to just change it makes it a lot easier, and then we just signed
off. I mean, he didn’t make any content changes per se. (T4)
It is very much aligned with the state Stull evaluation process, which is
several administrators are involved in it and the teachers who are being
evaluated that year are assigned, divvied up sort of, by the administrators.
. . . Each person who is being evaluated is required to come up with goals
and objectives. That’s straight from the handbook. They are reviewed with
that administrator and then, in an ideal situation, the administrator observes
the teacher both formally and informally throughout the year, ending with a
formal evaluation or a formal observation and evaluation, which is then
reviewed with the teacher and placed in the teacher’s file. (T6)
Section II addressed goals and objectives specific to the school. A com
mittee of administrative staff and a faculty advisory committee from the school
developed these “goals and objectives.” The teacher could reflect on the school’s
goals and the district’s goals and align individual goals to those goals.
Sections III, IV, and V were to be completed by the teacher. Eighty-eight
percent of the teachers indicated on the survey that they agreed with the goals and
objectives of the district’s policy on teacher evaluation, but only 81% indicated that
they were aware of the goals and objectives of the school. The lower percentage
was noticeable because each teacher who was going to be evaluated had a copy of
the school’s goals and objectives; this suggests that 12% of the teachers were not
going to be evaluated during the survey year.
Section III allowed the teachers to produce their own goals and objectives.
Section IV presented the activities that would indicated that these objectives had
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
been attained, and Section V addressed the constraints that could affect the attain
ment of these objectives. The administrator met with the teacher being evaluated
and, either individually or collaboratively, created goals and objectives that the
teacher could work on throughout the year.
During our meeting we go over how to write goals and objectives. Most
teachers need help. I give examples of well-written goals as well as poorly
written goals. I make sure that the objectives are written in observable and
measurable terms. I find that teachers tend to write objectives that are too
broad and can’t be measured, so I help them with that.. . . I also remind
them that that the evaluation process is required yearly for all new teachers,
temporary teachers, and probationary teachers and every other year for
permanent teachers. (P)
The deadline for all objectives to be finalized and signed by both the evalu
ator and the evaluatee was 7 weeks from the first working day of the assignment.
By mid-October, the goals and objectives were due from the evaluatee and the
evaluator must have reviewed them, agreed on them, and ensured that they were
written in the proper format were measurable.
Observations of the teachers were both formal and informal. The number of
formal observations was routinely three. There were five components that observa
tions were based on, according to the teachers’ contract from Snicks:
1. An observation was based on one or more of the following components:
district goals and objectives, individual school/office goals and objectives,
individual employee goals and objectives, and performance assessment criteria.
2. Each formal observation was followed by a conference, which took place
within 5 working days.
3. Formal observations were summarized on an observation form, with a
copy given to the evaluatee within 10 working days after the observation.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Except by mutual agreement, formal observations did not begin until
after goals and objectives were agreed upon.
5. For a less-than-satisfactory observation lesson analysis, the evaluatee
requested an additional formal observation to be conducted jointly by the evaluator
and another manager selected by the evaluator. The second manager was creden-
tialed/certified in the credential/subject/special services area of the evaluatee’s
assignment. The subsequent conference and lesson analysis were conducted/
developed by both managers this was aligned to the Education Code (§44664[3c]).
In the observation, the evaluator provides a summary of the lesson or
situation, asks questions regarding the observation, communicates strengths and
effectiveness of the lesson, communicates areas that need improvement, and
provides suggestions for a proposed plan of action to meet the desired objectives.
The second worksheet given to the teacher was the final evaluation, Certifi
cated Instructional Personnel Evaluation (appendix K). The evaluator completed
this worksheet. The first section of this worksheet had the rating of the teacher in
six categories (a) teacher-pupil relationships, (b) personal characteristics, evidence
of sound professional attitude and judgment, (c) evidence of pupil progress toward
established standards, (d) instructional techniques, (e) adherence to curricular
objectives, (f) suitable learning environment, and (g) performance of required
services other than classroom instruction. These categories could be rated as
satisfactory, needs to improve, or unsatisfactory. The following section was for the
evaluator’s comments and a check-off area if the evaluatee was recommended or
not recommended for future employment. This section required the evaluator’s and
the evaluatee’s signature. The sheet also provided comment areas for the evaluator
to detail areas of needed improvement and an area for suggestions for
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improvement. The last area on this form was the evaluatee’s response to the final
evaluation. The evaluations were given in writing to the employee no later than 30
days prior last day of school congruent with the Education Code (§ 44663 [a]). The
evaluator held a conference with the evaluatee to review the written evaluation. At
that time both the evaluator and the evaluatee signed the final evaluation, which
was then placed in the employee’s permanent file.
In summary, the evaluation process at Snicks was a clearly defined
structure, congruent with the collective bargaining agreement that was established
between the school district and the teachers union, as well as aligned with the Stull
evaluation process as required by law. Evidence was presented through California
Education Code §§ 44660-44665, teacher contract, surveys, and interviews. Eighty-
eight percent of the teachers indicated on the survey that they agreed with the goals
and objectives of the district’s policy on teacher evaluation, 94% indicated that that
they were aware of and understood the district’s policy regarding teacher evalua
tion. The teacher contract contained much of the information, such as who was
going to be evaluated each year, what would be the general parameters of the
classroom visitations, and the dates by which each portion of the process must be
completed. Eighty-one percent of the teachers agreed with the survey item that
stated, “I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher evaluation
policies as an integral part of my professional growth.” There was little criticism
about being evaluated. The concern arose among the 69% of the teachers who
stated that the administrator discussed instructional strategies with them. This
number could be viewed as a negative; however, the wording can be used as
discussed instructional strategies as a form of improving their evaluation rating,
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
meaning that not many teachers received poor scores on their evaluations and that it
would be unnecessary to speak about instructional strategies.
Research Question 2: Impact on Teacher Behavior
Research question 2 asked, How does the teacher evaluation process impact
teacher behavior? Related to this question, the results yielded that the teachers felt
that the evaluation process was necessary for each teacher; it made them account
able and made them feel in check. However, the effectiveness of the evaluation
mattered for teachers.
Don’t give me suggestions unless you can show me how it is going to bene
fit the student. If it is not going to benefit the student, I don’t want to hear
about it. (T4)
It keeps me in check. I think people get really comfortable, no matter what
job you’re in. You’re like, yeah, I’ve done it 10 years, I know what I’m
doing. But things change and kids learn differently and we learn more
research about kids and the way they develop, and we need to modify to
that. Just like the evaluation system we have now, we need to modify it so
that we can really see how well we are doing. Everything is so broad on that
thing [evaluation form], how could we really change our instruction? (T3)
Teachers also stated that the instrument should be more specific to produce
accurate results and that the current evaluation process should to be updated to be
effective. In response to the survey, 88% of the teachers indicated that they were
confident IN the administrator’s ability to evaluate instructional practice. Yet no
one mentioned the administrator’s knowledge of teacher evaluation in the inter
views. A lower percentage (56%) of the teachers indicated that the administrator
frequently observed the classroom for the purpose of evaluation. This low percent
age reflected that the teachers were frequently observed through walk-throughs and
did not feel that each time an administrator was in their classroom they were being
evaluated.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I’m always on my guard as far as teaching because at this campus, whether
you’re being observed or not formally, you’re being observed anyway.
We’re a very high-profile school. We’ve become a school of choice, and we
have many visitors. We have the informal observations. Our administrative
team can come in at any time and make observations on their informal
observation template. So I’m not saying it makes me a better teacher or
worse teacher, it just reinforces and validates what I already do in my
classroom. (T4)
The next comment came from a teacher who reported that she changes her
behavior when the administrator is in the classroom: She makes sure that she is
questioning more and that the students are on task. She also questioned the
accountability of other teachers.
I guess it must, because if it wasn’t there, I guess I wouldn’t be checking for
all of the components that the template is asking for. When she [the
evaluator] is in my room evaluating, I question more, questions embedded
for high-level thinking, there’s more of that and there’s more of me making
sure the students are on task and learning.. . . I do a better job when she’s in
the room. Without evaluation, who checks on all the other teachers? (Tl)
Interviews with veteran teachers revealed that the teacher evaluation
impacted their behavior only to the extent that it was a document that was to be
placed in their personnel files. The teachers indicated that the evaluation process
was a routine gesture and that the rating system was easy to be successful; how
ever, it was a document that had to be respected. The veteran teachers’ behaviors
would be impacted for only a level of concern; however, they would do a good job
either way, with or without an evaluation.
I love to be observed, actually. I love knowing that someone’s going to be
observing me. I know I am a good teacher, so I just like hearing it. I would
probably do a great job without the evaluation, but I like the praise, it keeps
me coming to work. I love being formally observed because it really also
helps me think through lesson design. I mean, after 20years, you start really
just going through the process, it’s definitely ingrained. Anyone coming in
to watch me teach raises my level of anxiety and helps do my best.. . . But
really, I know I will pass the evaluation, it’s easy. I don’t take too seriously
U, N, or S. How hard is that? (T8)
I think evaluations are to be valued because knowing that I’m being evalu
ated makes me accountable for my teaching. If I’m in an evaluation year,
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
it’s not that I teach better in my evaluation year than when I don’t, but my
level of concern is raised a little. I mean, actually I have never received a N
or a U. I don’t think it’s very difficult to get all S’s. I’ve been through it so
many times it’s no big deal. Overall, I don’t mind being evaluated. (T9)
The teachers at Snicks reported that teacher evaluation impacted teacher
performance; however, 94% of the interviewees indicated that the current evalua
tion should be reexamined to be more effective as an instrument of evaluation. As
T2 remarked, “The comments are very limited; I get more feedback on the walk
through sheets.” The teachers spoke about the evaluation as being an ineffective
tool because it was too broad; it was also archaic and needed to change with the
times. They expressed the opinion that, because of the present evaluation process,
the mediocrity for teachers would continue. The newer teachers indicated a prefer
ence for something more specific.
No, I don’t think it’s very thorough, and it’s not our school, it’s the district.
It’s the way the teachers are evaluated. I understand that there’s a lot of
mitigating circumstances, such as contract issues and things like that. But I
think the way we evaluate teachers often does not get to the heart of what
needs to be evaluated. (Tl)
Okay, a lot of times what has happened in the past, for me, were, we would
set the goals and objectives. We would have the meeting. They would come
do the observation. We have the follow-up but we would never by the end
of the year go back and look and see if any of those goals and objectives
were met. How could you meet a goal that can’t be measured? . . . The
sense I got from it was, this is a piece of paper work that has got to be in by
such and such a time. So, it was really very ineffective. (T5)
The veteran teachers were more emphatic about the ineffectiveness of the
evaluation tool and the need for change.
I think the goals and objectives are really archaic. They haven’t redone that
thing since I’ve started, and it’s the exact same sheet. In fact, it is even
typeset, you know, like on a manual typewriter. They really need to rethink
the whole goals and objectives. I mean, they understand it’s sort of going to
look the same in terms of what you’re after, but it really can be revamped.
. . . We’re in the 21st century here now and especially with the advent of
data collection and strategic data collection that has been promoted. I mean,
that can totally be integrated into the evaluation process, and I’m surprised
that it hasn’t. It’s just still the same old thing. (T7)
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The problem is that the evaluation process doesn’t let me measure my
growth. It’s like, you write down some objectives and the day that the
administrator comes in, that one day, if the objectives are met, then you
pass. What about all the other days when I don’t meet the objectives?
Evaluations should be measurable so that my colleagues and I can see the
growth. Without an effective evaluation system, the mediocrity continues.
(T8)
The evaluation system is horrid. There is no place to mark absolute
excellence, and the areas were really broad. I know that I teach way better
than many of the teachers here, but I don’t feel that the evaluation system
shows that. I mean, I deserve an E for excellence, yet get an S for satis
factory, the same as all the other mediocre teachers. I don’t think it is a fair
representation of how I teach. (T9)
In summary, a pattern emerged from this question on the impact of teacher
evaluation on teacher practice. Two factors yielded a high degree of concurrence in
describing the impact of the teacher evaluation process on teacher behavior: (a) the
results of the teacher evaluation survey, which yielded high percentages of agree
ment that teacher evaluation impacted teacher practice; and (b) the teacher inter
views, in which the teachers shared their knowledge and perceptions. Teachers
apparently sensed that it was an important part of the accountability and that it
made them reflect on their teaching. However, the same teachers who perceived
that the evaluation process impacted the teacher behavior also expressed in the
interviews that the evaluation process (the Stull) should be restructured to become
an effective tool that gave a true representation of teachers’ capabilities in the
classroom.
Research Question 3: Factors
Impacting Teacher Practice
Research question 3 asked, What factors exist at the school that positively
or negatively impact teacher practice? There were many factors that positively or
negatively impacted teacher practices at Snicks Middle School. This section first
presents evidence of five positive impacts on teacher practices: communication of
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
appreciation, structured discipline plan, school-wide expectations, frequent
informal observations, and professional development. This is followed by evidence
of the negative impacts on teacher practices.
Communication o f Appreciation
A positive practice that impacted teacher practices was the enthusiasm for
appreciating the teachers. This communication of appreciation recognized the
teachers, and often the students, for their exceptional daily efforts. All of the
responses to the observation survey indicated a reward/recognition program in
place for teachers and students. The interviews supported that data, as all inter
viewees commented on the recognition programs. The Celebration Star was a
gesture of recognition in which a poster-sized star was passed from teacher to
teacher for doing a great job. The Celebration Star hangs on the inside of a
teacher’s door so that, when the door is open, everyone walking in the hallway can
see that this teacher has been recognized.
We passed around a celebration star from one teacher to another. So if you
get it, you get to pass it on to somebody. It can be anybody on campus.
That’s always really cool because you only get to have it a couple of weeks,
but when you have it, it’s really exciting. I got it last year and it was . . .
really, really cool. (T3)
During my observations, I entered a classroom just as the morning bell had
rung. Just then, the principal began to speak over the intercom: “Good morning,
please stand for the flag salute.” After the salute the principal spoke to the students
as if he were standing in front of them. The students listened intently as he praised
all students who were going to be recognized at the student of the month assembly,
which was another way the principal communicated his appreciation to the students
and staff.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another form of recognition was the weekly school newspaper, which had a
special section called “poop” that was written by the principal. Teachers com
mented that they appreciated that each Monday morning they looked forward to
reading that section and perhaps seeing their names mentioned in the article.
Another way for teachers to be recognized for outstanding performance was
through the monthly morning DVD of special events. This DVD could be played
throughout the school simultaneously. This DVD was designed by one of the
assistant principals, who would catch teachers and students during the day doing
various activities and compile them on an edited DVD with music. Teachers as
well as students could see their peers in action and celebrate their hard work. As the
teachers, both new and veteran, spoke about the recognition honors, their pride was
evident and their appreciation was genuine.
The sharing of ideas publicly written in notices that the principal puts out
every Monday in his little poop section. {He calls it poop). It’s good things
that he’s seen or heard or people have shared with him what teachers have
done. And we get staff cash for anything that we’ve done, like the poster I
made in the office, I got a little staff cash for that, which means my name
goes into a drawing for an IPOD. Yeah, you want to do a lot of things and
get people to see you doing them. Because it’s a nice prize at the end. It
helps with the morale and I feel I teach better because I want people to see
me. (Tl)
Teacher nominations are a big part of my teaching. I like that you can
nominate other teachers for specific awards and they do that like every
quarter, and that’s pretty exciting, so they’re really good at recognizing the
people that are doing a good job. And then the staff members can write to
[the principal’s name] about things that are going really well or like, if
you’re friends with another teacher and they are too shy to go to [the
principal’s name], I’m doing this really cool thing, you can like send him
the information and he puts it in the bulletin, in his “poop” section. I don’t
know, it just makes you feel special. They’re really good at recognizing
staff members, I think, and that motivates me to want to be here and do new
stuff for my kids and get out and talk to everybody, and share ideas and
they share, too. (T6)
For one thing, the administration is really trying mightily to recognize good
teaching, both in a weekly bulletin and over the intercom, and you know, at
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
staff meetings, really trying to recognize good teachers . . . give positive
reinforcement. We know it works in the classroom and, by God, it works
for teachers, too! You can catch more flies with honey, I swear, and that has
been, you know, the kind of thing that just naturally comes, and the
administration is really good at it. (T8)
The other thing we do that is kind of fun that we have done the last couple
of years is that we have an AP that’s really good with DVDs. One of the
ways we celebrate, too, is we tape stuff that goes on in classes or special
events, and every month we just run it. She just makes a little DVD of it and
we run it in the morning. We can put it on all the TVs at one time. So we do
a little celebration so that everyone can see the great things that are going on
campus. We say, “Guys, look at the great stuff that you’re doing.” (P)
Structured Discipline Plan
As I walked through the hallways before the morning bell, the doors of the
classrooms were open, as I looked into the classrooms some teachers were listening
to music as they prepare for their day, other classrooms had children doing work
where the teacher was assisting. There were no children walking through the
buildings prior to the morning bell. Lockers lined the walls of the hallways and,
where there were no lockers, schoolwork adorned the walls. Each teacher had a
certificate outside the classroom door, containing the teacher’s name, credential
subject taught, and the teacher’s university. It was 8:50 a.m. and the first bell rang,
students were rushing to get to their first class, some students were using the
lockers, others were going directly to their classes with their backpacks on their
backs, teachers were standing in the hallways greeting students as well as supervis
ing. Five minutes later, the bell rang, and a teacher went through the halls and
collected students who were tardy for class. The female teacher, who was on her
conference, took the tardy students into her classroom and handed them a pink
sheet of paper. This paper was a form that the students filled out when they were
tardy. This form made the students accountable for their tardiness and required
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
them to explain in their own words to their parents why they were tardy. This
routine of sweeps happened after each passing period.
The discipline plan in place at Snicks is a program taken from the Safe and
Civil Schools series by Sprick, Garrison, and Howard (1998). This discipline plan is
a positive behavior management program based on four principles: (a) All students
must be treated with dignity and respect, (b) students should be taught the skills for
necessary success, (c) motivation and responsibility should be encouraged through
positive interactions and by relationships with students, and (d) student mis
behavior represents a teaching opportunity. Teachers as well as students consider
this to be a fair form of discipline. Ninety-four percent of the responses to the
observation survey indicated a sense of safety and security on campus.
Because of the discipline plan, I can teach. These kids are not always little
angels, and we have a system that we have to follow and keep up with. All
the teachers have to follow it and be consistent so that it can work. Before I
really knew how the system worked, I thought I wasn’t getting support from
the administration. They wouldn’t do anything. Then I realized I have to do
my job, that means takes the steps that they [the administration] told me to,
like call the parents more than once and have a conference with them. Once
the parents are involved, it’s a different story. (Tl)
I like the discipline, Safe and Civil Schools, because it was something that
the whole staff was trained on, everyone is on the same page. Everyone has
their job, like doing the hallway tardies. You know that the students are
going to learn because we are consistent. (T5)
There’s a huge amount of cohesion in the disciplinary practices, and the
expectations the students have when they walk in the door. The focus on
writing here absolutely helps all of our teaching because the kids are such
better writers than what I’m used to. Even those pink sheets, the tardy ones,
like they’re written in complete sentences and they’re thought out. They’re
grammatically correct. Their spelling’s pretty good and the kids know
exactly what to expect and when to expect it and how to expect it. I think
collaboration makes an incredibly big positive difference; it makes us feel
we are all working towards a common goal, especially in discipline. (T6)
It was clear that the teachers knew the procedures for the discipline plan,
and so did the children. For a plan to work properly, all persons involved must be
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
trained in the process, and efficiency comes from practice. The principal com
mented that, at times, he has to remind the teachers about the protocol for writing a
referral.
If they follow the process that we have in place, things run smoothly. If the
teacher says, “You didn’t bring a pencil,” here is a referral, then they’re not
following protocol because you can’t write a referral for a kid not having a
pencil.. . . It took 2 years, but we worked it out. This is probably the 4th
year of the referral process, and we probably got it the most streamlined. So
it’s really nine steps that the teacher and the student have to go through, two
of which are parent phone calls, two of which are parent meetings have to
go through to be able to write a referral. So if you get the to the tenth step,
you are getting a referral. Level II and Level III are judgment calls for
writing referral. What I’m getting at is, there is a system for this, and it
works. (P)
Safe and Civil Schools program was the system that middle school offered.
We took them up on it and they provided the training, because all the stuff
takes training, no matter what you’re doing here. It takes training, but they
provided the training and the frames, so to speak, of how to do school-wide
hallway behavior, how to deal with tardy behavior, how to do defiant
behavior, and why it is important. Because the other thing is that in Safe
and Civil Schools they ask you a question why people do what they do here.
We have data to say that what you’re doing didn’t work. (API)
School-Wide Expectations
Having school-wide expectations was another positive impact on teacher
practices. There were many school-wide expectations that had a positive impact on
teacher practice but the three most relevant were (a) a school-wide focus on writ
ing, (b) school-wide vision, and (c) common instructional tools in every classroom.
During interviews and observations, teachers were highly concerned with maintain
ing the school-wide expectations.
We have school-wide expectations on a lot of things, and I am diligent
about making sure that I do all that is asked of me because I don’t want to
let our team down. (T7)
The shared expectations are something we all are involved in. Not every
body’s thrilled, but I think everybody is willing to do all of them [the
expectations] in some way, shape, or form to provide consistency within the
classroom. (T9)
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School-Wide Writing
School-wide writing across the curriculum focuses on improving students’
writing skills, not only during their English classes but during their other classroom
disciplines. The focus on school-wide writing was a concept developed by the
principal and the leadership body as a strategy to improve the school’s language
skills. The strategy was then implemented after being agreed upon by the entire
staff.
All teachers had to be trained in writing mechanics, regardless of their
subject expertise. Departments within the school reviewed the content standards
and identified topics for the students to write about during the school-wide monthly
writing exercise. The teachers’ professional development activities were focused on
providing a basic writing structure and improving their writing mechanics, allowing
them to better assist their students with their writing assignments. Teachers had to
be trained in calibrating the students’ papers so that all teachers were correcting the
papers using the same scale. A school-wide expectation was that teachers put in
additional time to correct all writing across the curriculum. The English department
was in charge of creating the rubrics to correct the papers.
Teachers indicated that the requirement of doing extra writing was more
work; nevertheless, they stated that it impacted not only improved teacher practice
but also improved student achievement. Over time, Snicks had improved their
statewide test scores in English, which in turn increased their state API scores. The
improved results were a deciding factor for Snicks to continue the school-wide
expectation focused on writing from year to year. During interviews, teachers
expressed their views on the positive influence of writing across the curriculum.
Once a month, the kids all write. I think that’s partially what makes this
school successful. It’s a positive thing that we have implemented and has
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changed the way I teach. Not everyone is happy about it, but let’s look at
the truth here, and this is why we are success Ail. I know it gets on a lot of
people’s nerves, but I think if you take the writing away, you’d lose a lot of
your success. I think the Stepfordiness, as much as it’s weird, plays an
important part of our school. We care about what people think about us. If
you pull that away from what the expectations say, you’ll lose a lot of your
success. (T2)
The school-wide writing focus is every department has plans for how
they’re going to write at least one something per month and with a focus
(right now it’s a paragraph), and we have a frame that they follow and so
forth. So when the kids see that in all the classes they go to, it becomes an
expectation that this is what we’re going to do. (T5)
I personally think a school-wide focus is the main reason, one of the big
reasons why the scores go up. Because the kids are writing, writing, writing.
Our focus is writing, and we all have that expectation. If you have to do an
academy summary, it means you have to have read something and then you
have to break it down. You have to write about what you’ve read. If you can
do that, you can understand what you write. And there’s a whole lot of other
skills going on in the process of getting to that. We have school-wide
rubrics where there are academic summaries and we have a frame for the
academic summaries, even in PE. In PE they have a textbook and they make
their little academic summary frames. But everybody’s doing it, so there’s
some kind of writing going on. (T8)
Even though writing across the curriculum was time consuming, teachers
saw the positive benefits that it provided and were supportive of the school-wide
expectation.
Vision
Displayed in all the classrooms was the school’s vision statement:
[Snicks Middle School], a school of choice, challenges students to master
the basics and explore unlimited possibilities in technology, fine arts, and
foreign language while assuring every student will learn. The diverse
student community is empowered to meet higher standards of character and
academic performance in an enriching, supportive environment that pre
pares them for high school and beyond.
The vision of a school should reflect the values, passions, and purpose of
the students, staff, parents, and community (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The vision
statement provides the school’s focus and is a daily reminder of what really
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
matters. The vision is the roadmap for directing every school activity and it is the
school’s leadership expectation that the students and staff not only know the
school’s vision but, more important, integrate it into their daily routines.
Observations made it clear that each classroom identified its department’s
vision and created a vision statement for the classroom. The vision statements were
visible in each classroom, reminding the teachers and the students of their goals. It
was clear through the school’s focus on their vision that the expectations of the
school were an important part of the daily routine.
The vision that “every student will learn” reinforced the school’s focus that,
no matter what circumstances arose, all students would be empowered to meet high
standards while learning. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents to the survey
stated that the teachers were familiar with the vision and could speak to the goals of
the vision. The vision was the roadmap that identified the expectations of the
school. For this school, it was an integral part of their day.
Common Instructional Tools
Many common instructional themes were exhibited in the classrooms. For
example, the daily agenda was posted in a visible location so that any visitor could
easily identify what topics would be covered during the day’s instructions. Other
documents posted were grade- and subject-appropriate content standards for the
class, class work written expectations for student completion during the day, and
homework assignments. In responses to items on the survey, 94 % of the teachers
stated that content standards for the daily lesson were visible on the board, 100%
stated that the agenda and the objectives of the lesson were visible to the students,
and 100% stated that student work was displayed in their classroom. These
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
common instructional tools were items that the entire staff agreed would be visible
in the classroom. Another school-wide tool utilized by each student was a daily
planner. The planners allowed students to write their assignments and keep track of
their assignment progress. School-wide expectations unite a school and reinforce
positive teacher practices through repetition.
Frequent Informal Classroom
Observations
Frequent informal classroom observations were another important compon
ent that positively impacted teacher practice at Snicks. Classroom observations
serve three primary purposes: to provide feedback to the teacher, to maintain
teacher accountability, and to assure that the content standard requirements are met.
Classroom observations were conducted by the principal, assistant principals,
coaches, other peer teachers, or any visitor on campus. These informal observations
were unannounced and could last from 5 minutes to 25 minutes.
During the observations a check-off sheet (appendix L) was utilized to
assure that the observer could document their feedback while assessing the class
room components. The check-off sheet was utilized to provide feedback to the
teacher from the observer’s perspective. The check-off sheet included questions to
identify whether students were on task, whether there were opportunities for the
students to have guided practice, and whether the students were actively participat
ing in the lessons.
Classroom observations allowed for the observer to provide immediate
feedback to the teacher, which enabled the teacher to feel a sense of comfort that
these visits were designed not only to give constructive criticism but also to
celebrate the good things that the teacher was doing in the classroom. The teachers
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stated that observations made them more accountable, kept them aligned with what
they were supposed to be teaching, and assured that the content standards were
being met.
Teachers were not always happy about the visits because they were per
ceived as performance pressure. The visits were distracting at times and disruptive
to some of the teachers; however, all concurred that the visits had a positive impact
on teacher practice. The administrators who made the visits made a point to give
feedback to the teachers by the end of the day. The following comments were
received from teachers regarding the topic of classroom observations:
Our school site has an informal observation check sheet and it’s actually
open-ended. It’s a check-off sheet and then there are places for comments. It
is directly correlated to our shared expectations for our staff and our school,
all the things that we’ve decided that are important in terms of classroom
management, in terms of content, you know, objective posted, and things
like that. (Tl)
Sometimes, I feel like I am in a fishbowl because we always have people
coming in and out. It does keep me on task but it can be distracting.. . . I
know it helps my teaching in the long run. (T3)
We have our walkthroughs and our formal observations. Our administrators
are really good about leaving notes in our boxes about what they liked or
what they found in our classroom. The notes aren’t punitive or derogatory
or critical. It’s just validating what we do in our classrooms. I love getting
those notes. I save every single one and I have them filed away. I think it’s
great. (T6)
It’s almost like a checklist: student workup, there’s a checklist actually. It’s
like when the administrators come in here, they have a checklist and they
check everything that they saw. Then... I’ve had a couple. I could pull
them up. They’ll tell you, like, what they liked and something to think about
for next time. Kinda like of when we grade kids’ papers. You know, you tell
them something you like, and something to think about and you try to end it
on a good note, and that’s what they sorta do with us. It’s pretty similar as
to how we’re supposed to treat the kids. (T7)
Feedback. And you get it. Like here, you get it. In my old site, someone
could spend a whole hour in your classroom and you never heard a word
positive or negative. It is consistent, I like that. (T9)
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Informal classroom observations were an important part of teacher practice
because of the feedback that they offered. They made the teachers accountable, and
all teachers were observed with the same instrument (the walk-through check-off
sheet); therefore, the teachers already knew the expectations.
Professional Development
Professional development was the last component that positively impacted
teacher practice at Snicks. Good professional development opportunities included
strong content and effective processes for making initial and ongoing decisions.
Relevant content ensured professional development activities helped teachers to
meet the students’ learning goals. Professional development goals at Snicks
included improving all students’ learning, improving teachers’ effectiveness,
setting high standards for teachers, promoting continuous staff learning, and
enhancing staff intellectual and leadership capacity. Professional development
activities utilized at Snicks included weekly staff meetings, in-service training,
ongoing mentorships, off-site conferences, and training offered by the district and
the county.
Weekly meetings at Snicks consisted of professional development activities
combined with analyzing student work to identify weaknesses to focus future
curriculum development. Each meeting at Snicks provided instructional strategies
that assisted the staff in realizing the school’s vision. Continuous professional
development activities were planned throughout the year and scheduled on the
master school calendar. At the beginning of the year all teachers received a copy of
the calendar, which identified all the professional development activities for the
year. This was designed to promote the sharing of knowledge by staff. Staff were
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
encouraged to review the master calendar, identify topics related to their expertise,
and volunteer to participate in the presentation of a specific strategy. This type of
professional development encouraged collaboration by teachers and department
representatives and fostered a team-focused learning environment.
Researcher observations agreed with the data from the interviews and the
survey. The meetings were positive and informative. Eighty-eight percent of the
teachers indicated on the survey that there was a friendly and positive environment
in staff meetings.
Each time we analyze the writing, I learn something new. My colleagues are
ready to help me out with identifying the problems. It’s funny how the time
flies when you’re having fun. (T2)
Our faculty meetings are not the typical staff meetings where teachers are
not engaged. Our meetings are focused on learning and increasing our
knowledge base so we can improve the ways we teach and thus positively
impact our classroom approaches to ultimately impact our students’
performance. (T6)
New ideas and reinforcement of current teaching strategies were provided
during faculty meetings, all of which reflected the school’s vision. The commit
ment to learning was evident through the staffs continued attendance. Each staff
meeting/professional development meeting was mandatory and was agreed upon at
the time the teachers were hired. The veteran teachers voted and agreed to this.
Eighty-eight percent of the teachers indicated on the Teacher Evaluation Survey
that they had a clear understanding of the professional development goals of the
school. These goals were that professional development would be offered at all
staff meetings, and that, at the beginning of each year, teachers would receive a list
of all professional development that would occur. Eighty-two percent of the
teachers stated they had an active role in developing professional development
goals and objectives. This reflected the meeting observed by the researcher in
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which two of the presenters were teachers at the school. It appeared that this was a
common occurrence because the presenter, who was a teacher, referred to the
Mathematics department’s presentation the week before.
All teachers indicated on the Teacher Evaluation Survey that they had
multiple opportunities throughout the year to participate in professional develop
ment activities. The teachers perceived that, other than the weekly mandatory
professional development sessions offered at the school, there were other oppor
tunities to attend training that would improve their practice. Staff members
attended workshops and conferences throughout the year, presented by district
mentor teachers and other speakers. At the district, at school, or at other sponsored
professional development activities, the teachers from Snicks took advantage of the
learning opportunities that could benefit their profession.
I like the way our school has approached professional development. The
going program right now is the administration encourages professional
development that has long-range ramifications. (T4)
Professional development topics have included the matching of curriculum with
content standards, test data analysis, writing skills, and intervention strategies.
Teachers use instructional strategies that provide a challenging and comprehensive
curriculum as well as rich diverse experiences for all children.
Another avenue for teachers to get professional development was at the
county level. The county offered free professional development opportunities for
teachers, which covered topics such as classroom management, discipline, issues in
specific fields, and leadership. Coaches, district personnel, department chairs, and
the administration all shared the stage for presenting various strategies that
influence the school-wide focus.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teachers indicated that the professional development opportunities at
Snicks exceeded the typical offerings at other middle schools.
Every single meeting is positive. It’s never information dissemination,
never, and that is building team spirit and common goals and strategies.
(Tl)
We have professional development activities every week, whether it was on
our faculty agenda or not. At our faculty meetings or department meetings,
there is an item devoted to professional development, in addition to all of
the after-school professional development. (T5)
I went to D/C this summer with the history department and like totally
changed the way I am teaching this year. It’s about how to make learning
hands-on and how to make it experiential for the kids. (T6)
The professional development that we have here at our school is great. I
haven’t gone for professional development at other places because it is
either too far away or just really inconvenient. (T7)
The committee gets together and we decide on the topics of professional
development. If it doesn’t fit in with the school-wide expectations or our
vision, we bury the idea. Some ideas are great but we are focused on the
needs of the school and we have to say no. (P)
Professional development meetings were based on the vision and the needs of the
school-wide expectations.
Negative Practices
Schools are not perfect, and Snicks did not claim to be perfect. Teachers
indicated that they were always working toward finding ways to assist their
students in excelling. However, when there are many people involved, sometimes
things get neglected or sacrificed. The negative practices that were identified were
not easily extracted from the information presented by the teachers because the
negative practices that they perceived were simply components of the positive
practices. The two practices that were mentioned as being perceived as negative
were the frequency of professional development activities and the time required to
meet school-wide expectations. The following statements were made by teachers
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
who indicated that improvement should take place in the implementation of these
practices and that, otherwise, the practices would be perceived as negative.
Professional development has gone overboard at this school. Every meeting
every week, I don’t think any school has this much. There gets to a point
where I think professional development should be optional, but no, not at
Snicks. It gets tiring; everything at this school is tiring. There is so much
work to be done to be number one, I get it, but I have a life other than
Snicks, and I am feeling burnt out and so are a lot of teachers. But to be on
a team, you can’t complain, only on these confidential interviews, this is
confidential, right? Lots of work, lots of demands, it’s just hard. (Tl)
Professional development is not just listening to a speaker anymore, it’s
trying it in your classroom. They make sure, they check, it’s bring the
student work back to the meeting to analyze it, it’s learning how to
calibrate, there is no end. That is my point: There is no end.. . . It helps my
teaching, but there is no end. (T3)
Negative comments were more reflective of the time factor and the ability
of the teachers to complete all of their assigned tasks. Teachers stated that the
professional development practices consumed too much time and that there was no
end to this frequent practice. It was noticed that the teachers who strongly spoke
about the professional development component were new teachers. The new
teachers expressed feeling overwhelmed by all of the demands placed on them.
We do a lot here, we work hard, and I know we are appreciated, but I often
don’t have time for myself. I get burned out really quickly when there are so
many deadlines and things that need to be done, and all these things don’t
include grades. (T2)
There’s a lot to do. Sometimes there’s so much to do that your head starts
spinning. I have to do all these “school expectations” that they have for us,
and we still have to teach. Do they understand that we all can’t be doing a
perfect job on everything? Some things are going to get compromised; I just
don’t have enough time to do everything. (T5)
In summary, five practices positively impacted teacher practices at Snicks
middle school: communication of appreciation, structured discipline plan, school-
wide expectations, frequent informal observations, and professional development.
The teachers valued each practice and the practices were perceived as successful
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
because the improvements resulted in increased state API and the federal AYP. The
negative perceptions of the teachers’ practices were based on the amount of time
required for each practice.
Research Question 4: Contributions
by Site Leadership
Research question 4 asked, How does the site leadership team contribute to
improved teacher practice? The purpose of this research question was to identify
the elements of the leadership team that contributed to improved teacher practice.
On a particular morning during my study I entered the office where children
awaited assistance by the attendance clerk. The three women in the office (the
office manager, the secretary and the clerk) greeted me. The secretary asked me
whether I was a parent and how could she help me. I explained that I was there to
observe the school and she gave me a pass and told me to enjoy my day. Each time
I was on campus, I made sure to check to see whether the principal was in his
office; he rarely was at his desk, he was usually roaming around campus. I would
later see him with his clipboard, stepping into one of the classrooms where I was
observing or walking quickly across the campus to attend to an immediate issue. At
other times, he was supervising at lunch or after-school activities or just talking to
the students on the field. Every teacher indicated on the Teacher Evaluation Survey
that the administrators were visible in all areas of the school. According to the
interview data, the availability and visibility of the administration was a positive
practice that contributed to improved teacher practice. The principal was available
and ready to help whenever and wherever he was needed; he did not opt out of any
task. His visibility was prevalent over the entire campus; the teachers and students
felt his presence and viewed him as a positive role model.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
He [principal] is always around in his school uniform, going in and out of
classrooms, making us accountable. I need it, and I know so do a lot of
other teachers. You know, he has a big responsibility and, if he doesn’t
make sure we are doing what we are supposed to, he can’t be sure it is
getting done. (T2)
The principal has an open door policy, where students and staff can go to
discuss issues. This is a different philosophy than before, which I think
helps; the atmosphere of the administration is less threatening. (T4)
In an attempt to improve student achievement, Snicks set high expectations
for its teachers. The principal at Snicks shared his philosophy:
Teachers must be ready for a completely different environment than what
they have been used to. At Snicks we have some “non-negotiables,” like
maintaining a school-wide focus, adhering to a structured discipline plan,
teacher collaboration, uniform requirements, and required use of daily
planners, which all have increased the professionalism of the teachers and
the students. If the teachers are not willing to adhere to the criteria set by
the school, I will not hire them.
The principal was diligent about selecting the right people to work at Snicks:
I want team players who buy into our vision and want to be successful.
Everyone must be on board for this school to continue to succeed.
Four years ago the school was ready to be reconstituted by the state and, at
that time, new policies, new structures, and new leadership were implemented. In
California schools are ranked on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the highest). In 4
years Snicks has gone from a state rank of 3 to a state rank of 7, showing steady
improvement each year. The school’s API score went from 514 to 819. The school
has continued to reach and exceed its state and federal targets and, according to the
teachers, the leadership team was one of the reasons. Snicks was a school moving
in the positive direction toward success, and the principal would do anything keep
it that way. All teachers indicated on the Teacher Evaluation Survey that they were
comfortable in going to the school administrators for support, which created a more
open and collaborative environment; 88% stated that they were satisfied with the
professional competence and leadership ability of the administration, which created
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a team environment where staff members wanted to meet or exceed the stated
expectations and thereby not let the rest of the school down.
I’d do anything. . . honestly, and I’m not trying to kiss up, I’d do anything
they tell me to do. They want me to try data collecting per class, I’ll try it,
and if it works, I’ll keep doing it. They want me to try active participation,
I’ll try it. They want us to do monthly writing, I do it. I trust him [the
principal]; he wants what is best for kids. I will continue to do what is asked
of me; he [the principal] hasn’t steered me wrong. (T3)
This school has a lot of processes and a lot of systems. If you don’t have a
clear sense of your processes or your systems, things get messed up,
people’s feelings get hurt, and there is a lot of misunderstanding. If you
have good relationships, good things happen; bad relationships, bad things
happen. The lines of communication have to open and [the principal’s
name] has those lines open. (T7)
Snicks was an example of a school with distributed leadership. Distributed
leadership is participative; teachers, counselors, parents, and students all partici
pated in the decision making at the school. All teachers stated on the survey that the
leadership style of the administration was distributed. Members of the leadership
team all took responsibility for developing different curriculum areas while seeking
feedback from others. During the interviews, the leadership team members con
sistently reflected that they worked collaboratively, which resulted in a more
cohesive team. They each recognized his/her role as a school leader and recognized
how this contributed to the success of the school.
Oh my God, one leader? Almost everybody acts in some sort in leadership
capacity. I would say there are only very few people that don’t have any
sort of leadership responsibility. (T9)
It’s not any one thing that has made the difference at the school, it’s all
those things put together. We all work hard, which is why we’ve gone from
514 to 819 in just a few years; it’s a coordinated effort. The other thing
about California now, it is also deployed leadership. Yes, we have a steering
committee and we have department chairs, but there’s people in every one
of those departments who is a leader in some way, shape, or form. Teachers
are not isolated in their classroom by themselves. (API)
Everybody is kind of a leader in their own way. There’s times when they’re
not in active leadership positions but there are times when they are jumping
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to the front into a leadership role. Because of all the different leaders we
have, we’ve become a cohesive group with common thoughts and themes
and stuff. It doesn’t mean you’ll always agree but it means that you’re all
realizing the goals you’re working toward. (P)
Even though all teachers responding to the Observation Survey describe the
leadership style of the administration to be distributed, only 69% stated they had an
active role in initiating efforts toward school improvement. This was a surprisingly
low percentage, considering that the school had in place a system in which the
teachers who wanted to make school improvements could coordinate a team, work
out the logistics of the improvement, and then present it to the faculty for approval.
The survey suggests that most of the staff did not take advantage of the system for
involving teachers to make school improvements. Teachers expressed knowledge
of the ways to take a more active role in improving the school; however, few indi
cated they had participated in these opportunities, mostly due to other expectations
and time constraints.
Department heads, our principal, our program facilitator, our writing coach/
technology coordinator are all part of the leadership team. All of the
branches of the school are fairly well represented on this body. Although
the definition can be deceiving, because our administrative team is our
leadership team, too; but they’re not always making all of the decisions.
(Tl)
I think now the leadership gives us more discipline-making power through
something called QUIT, which is called Quality Improvement Team, so if
there is something that needs to be changed at our school site, people are
invited and encouraged to become part of those teams and make the differ
ence for themselves. (T5)
Before the school made this dramatic change, I think we were given the
impression or the illusion that we had choices and we were empowered, but
the parameters of the choice were so narrowly defined that we didn’t feel
that we even had the choice to begin with, if that makes sense. Now I think
that mentality is changing. We can go to any meeting we want to give our
input and if we want to make something happen or my department wants to
try something new, we just create a QUIT team. (T7)
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another instance where the leadership team positively impacted teacher
practices was the modeling of behaviors. The principal stated, “I can’t just tell them
what to do or how to act without showing them how to do it first.”
Whenever we hold a faculty meeting, they will always model different
teaching practices instead of just making announcements about it and
directing us to do this technique in your classroom. (T4)
The principal tries hard to be a model for both staff and students. He is
usually the first to arrive at school and the last to leave. He brings great
enthusiasm and energy to the job. I think his passion is contagious. (Tl)
The principal consistently reminded everyone about the school-wide focus
to achieve their stated goals and objectives.
The leadership team is constantly reminding us of what our common goals
are; it keeps me on track. I would spiral out of control otherwise. (T2)
We have to stay focused and he [the principal] is always reminding us at
every gathering to maintain our focus; he does it through actions or
speeches. We always hear about the school’s expectations and how we have
to complete them to stay number 1. (T6)
Department chairs have been elected by their peers and so they have repre
sentatives within their department meetings to share the flow of informa
tion. It is an easy clean communication structure, compared to other schools
where I have seen so many various committees; the structure here helps
with the communication. (T9)
The school had a perfect combination of expertise among members of the
leadership team. The leadership team not only consisted of the administration but it
included department chairs, counselors, selected students, and parents. There was a
joint commitment among the leadership team to help each other.
We all help each other. If I feel overwhelmed because of the amount of
work I have, I ask for help and more than one comes running to support me.
(T7)
The weekly leadership team meetings provided a forum for distribution of
responsibility on large projects and a sharing of information to keep the lines of
communication open. There were clear measurable goals within the organization
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the leadership team worked with the teachers to analyze data, helped with
providing interventions for students, and assisted in setting goals for students.
Snicks leadership helped with the tracking of the students’ progress and
helped with strategies to find solutions that increase student achievement. At
Snicks there was also informal leadership: leaders who worked without recognition.
They are members of the staff but the kids would probably call them
assistant principals because they deal with discipline and counsel. Members
of the leadership team wear many hats. They interact with different age
groups. Sometimes, someone is overburdened; someone else will step in
and help out. (P)
Leadership Frames
The leadership at Snicks could be categorized into the four frames of
Bolman and Deal (1997) as presented in chapter 1: structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic. These frames were apparent in the leadership style at
Snicks Middle School.
Structural Frame
According to Bolman and Deal (1997), the definition of the structural frame
stresses goals, specialized roles, and formal relationships in an organization. It was
evident that Snicks Middle School had many structures in place; they communi
cated goals and identified specialized roles. The teacher evaluation policy is one
way in which the district and school were aligned structurally according to the
provisions of the Stull Act. A teacher commented on the routine as being “by the
book.” Another example was the structured manner in which meetings were
conducted; the principal ensured that each minute of the professional development
meeting was used for learning, the agenda was on the board with times, and he
specifically stated when the presenters had 2 minutes left to keep them on the time
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schedule. The daily morning intercom message was also structured and always
ended with the daily encouragement motto.
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame was based primarily on the idea that, to get
individuals to do an effective job, they must feel good about what they were doing
(Bolman & Deal, 1997). Creating and maintaining a positive learning environment
was evident throughout the school. One example was the appreciation that the
teachers received, either by passing around the Celebration Star or getting recogni
tion in the weekly bulletin written by the principal. Through these gestures the
teachers felt appreciated and they were celebrated for doing a good job.
Another instance was through the advocating of the school-wide expecta
tions. The school’s principal was an active leader who made sure that teachers were
aware of the school’s expectations and how each teacher contributed to the overall
goals of the school. Teachers took time, sometimes their own, to meet these
expectations effectively. All of the interviewed teachers described these expecta
tions as worthwhile and indicated that they increased student achievement. These
teachers put in the extra time to meet the school’s expectations because it was for
the greater good, for the team/family, and for the children. The administrator stated,
“It is very important that teachers know how to do their jobs to the best of their
ability and feel they are a team striving to achieve the same expectations.” The
administrative staff recognized that the teachers are the most important part of
managing a successful school site.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Political Frame
The political frame, according to Bolman and Deal (1997), was seen as
areas, contests, or jungles—environments that require strategic maneuvering. The
political frame views organizations as alive, screaming political arenas that host a
complex web of individuals and group interests. The intentional focus on the
teachers and their needs was strategically integrated to increase student achieve
ment and outperform similar schools so Snicks would be a recognized star of the
district. The team at Snicks expressed the “them versus us” mentality; they always
wanted to outperform other schools and intentionally tried to win district-wide
contests.
Another example of utilizing the political frame was the school’s use of
community’s assets. When the students needed something extra, for instance
uniforms, the principal reached out to the community and raised money or was
creative at leveraging community assets. The principal also used the parent-teacher
group and parent volunteers to manage the uniform loan room, capitalizing on all
of the school’s assets.
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame contains the meanings and symbols, ceremonies, and
stories in which faith and hope are encompassed and communicated (Deal &
Peterson, 1999). Throughout the case study, belief in the students, teachers, and the
administrative staff was exhibited. Some examples were that on corrected papers
teachers used words of affirmation, assemblies were held to recognize Student of
the Month, and school pride was demonstrated by use of a school uniform. Even
the principal wore the school uniform in support of the students. The principal had
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
morning rituals of the flag salute over the intercom, followed by giving special
recognition to the teachers and students for their outstanding efforts.
All four frames were observed in the leadership style of the principal at
Snicks Middle School. The principal demonstrated effective leadership practices.
According to the data gathered from the surveys and interviews, the staff sincerely
agreed that the principal was truly an exceptional leader. He led by example and the
staff knew that the words of his vision would be transformed into actions year after
year. The principal was a man of consistency and follow-through; he set high
expectations not only for himself but for the teachers, the students, and the school.
Emergent Themes
After conducting a thorough analysis of the data based on the four research
questions, three themes emerged from the study: leadership, a culture of learning,
and collaboration.
Theme I: Leadership
The principal’s leadership was the driving force for maintaining focus,
establishing cultural norms, and setting school-wide expectations. The principal
serving as the instructional leader was identified as one of the key factors in the
school’s success. The findings from the interviews and observations indicated that
the principal was perceived as possessing the valuable characteristics of a leader,
such as focus, vision, and strategic insight. A clear and visionary leader provides
guidance for teachers and assurance that the effective site and instructional
decisions are made. This principal was viewed as strong, insightful, passionate,
honest, and fair. Research supports that a strong leader can inspire a school site to
success and academic achievement (Elmore, 2000).
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The distributive responsibilities at the school built leadership capacity and
allowed the staff to feel empowered to do the best job they could do. Everyone
perceived himself or herself as a leader. The distributive leadership made the staff
members feel that their individual efforts contributed to the whole unit. The
principal was an effective leader: He distributed decision-making responsibilities,
he was the instructional leader at the school site, and he developed a shared vision
for the school with its stakeholders. He put into place timely and valuable pro
fessional development to create an instructional focus at the school.
Improving student achievement becomes a collective responsibility and
celebrated together once it is achieved. By strategically utilizing formal and
informal leadership practices, leaders make student achievement the basis for all
decisions, interactions, and efforts (Elmore, 2000).
Theme II: A Culture o f Learning
The data strongly suggested that creating a culture that fostered professional
development was a major method of improving teacher practice. The school’s
findings confirmed that high-quality professional development activities could be
designed to improve teacher practice through utilizing curriculum developed by
administrators, coaches, department chairs, and teachers. The literature recognizes
the importance of quality professional development as a mechanism for creating
quality classroom teachers (Mohr & Dichter, 2001).
Teachers at Snicks highly valued their professional development activities
because they were focused learning opportunities and presented information that
was directly related to their students and classroom. Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001) suggested that schools should consider four elements to effect
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
change: (a) adequate modeling and practice, (b) feedback, (c) allowances for
differences in implementations, and (d) celebration. At Snicks, each of these
elements was present and was routinely practiced to create an environment for
learning.
Theme III: Collaboration
Collaboration was an important theme that all teachers agreed was bene
ficial to the success of the school. All stakeholders had a voice in shaping the
school. The staff had interdisciplinary roles and responsibilities that allowed them
to participate collaboratively for the betterment of the school. Teachers enjoyed
working with their colleagues, planning common lessons, articulating student
progress, and sharing strategies that enabled them to disseminate concepts in
creative ways. Through collaboration, teachers also spoke about alleviating the
isolation factor that commonly occurs with new teachers. Through collaboration,
teachers could review student work and, using the data discovered, the teachers
could discuss interventions that could be used to improve student achievement.
Research clearly links high levels of student achievement to collaborative efforts by
teachers (Dufour, 2002; King, 2002; Obiakor, 2000; U.S. Department of Education,
1999).
Discussion of Findings
The findings derived from the research showed that other elements at the
school had a more profound impact on student achievement and the success of the
school site than did the teacher evaluation process. The literature on effective
schools supports the use of standards-based instruction, parent and community
involvement, and data-driven decisions. Snicks was an example of an effective
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school, evident through its structures and regular practices. The basis for this study
was the teacher evaluation process and its impact on student achievement. How
ever, as the study progressed, each question answered and observation made
revealed other factors that impacted student achievement. At Snicks, the teacher
evaluation process was valued only as a vehicle of accountability, not for its
representation of the teaching ability of teachers.
Research Question 1: The Evaluation Process
Research question 1 asked, How is the evaluation process practiced at the
school site? The school’s policy on evaluation was the district-wide evaluation
policy, which was concise and inclusive and reflected the Stull Act. The teacher
contract handbook contained all evaluation procedures and provided necessary
documents to the school site. The administrators and the teachers followed the
teacher evaluation process closely. The principal was careful to complete the evalu
ations “by the book,” always keeping critical dates in mind. The teachers were
familiar with the evaluation process; as one teacher commented, “This evaluation
process has been around for a gazillion years,” and another teacher commented,
“The form is still written with a typewriter.” The site/district evaluation process
followed the California Education code §§ 44660-44665, which had been the law
since 1971.
One concern expressed by the teachers about the evaluation process was
that of unannounced visits by administrators. The site’s administration had a
regular practice of visiting classrooms for informal observation purposes. Even
though the teachers appreciated the feedback from these impromptu visits, the
concern was that these visits would be ammunition for documentation when the
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formal evaluations were written, even though the whole idea of informal observa
tions meant that the teacher was not being evaluated. The teachers’ contract stated
that there could be up to three formal visits a year and, according to the principal,
these were always planned and announced unless a teacher had an unsatisfactory
evaluation the prior year, and then the visitations were unannounced.
The new and veteran teachers understood and accepted the manner in which
the evaluation was completed. The teachers were comfortable with the process
because an orientation meeting was provided to share the necessary procedures of
the evaluation process.
Research Question 2: Impact o f Evaluation
Process on Teacher Behavior
Research question 2 asked, How does the teacher evaluation process impact
teacher behavior? It was evident that the evaluation process was a traditional pro
cess at the school site. The evaluation process was done according to the stipula
tions in the teacher handbook. The administration performed a preobservation
conference, an observation, and a postobservation conference, according to the
policy. The teachers stated that the formal Stull evaluation was not an effective tool
or a way to improve instructional practice. The teachers perceived the evaluation as
a source of keeping them in check, yet it needed to be reevaluated if it was to be an
instrument to improve teacher practice. It was noted that the informal observations
sheet, not related to evaluation, was a more useful tool than the formal evaluation
form for teachers to gain insight into their teaching practices. The assistant
principal commented, “The thing is the evaluation that exists, doesn’t focus on
improving the teacher’s classroom practices.”
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The teachers were satisfied with the evaluation, and all agreed it was a form
of accountability, a “keeping in check” tool, and they did not mind the process of
being evaluated. Some teachers even liked the chance to receive praise from their
principal. Over 70% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they viewed the
administrator’s implementation of the evaluation as an integral part of their pro
fessional growth. However, the interviews provided a range of perceptions, from
the process as meaningless to fair to effective. A new teacher commented that the
evaluation process was effective and added that the feedback verbal or written was
the essential component. Others commented that there was more feedback on the
walk-through check-off list than on the evaluation form.
Snick’s teachers agreed that the teacher evaluation process needed restruc
turing. Examples of comments received regarding the current evaluation in place
were, “With all the changes that have been occurring in education, I am surprised
we are not implementing those changes in the teacher evaluation process,” “That
process has been around so long, I know what to expect, it doesn’t really help,” and
“One day, they come in and see what? Do they really think that they can know a
teacher in one visit, and see all my attributes?” It was clear that the teachers valued
the evaluation; however; it did not impact their teaching practice.
Research Question 3: Factors
Affecting Teaching Practice
Research question 3 asked, What factors exist at the school that positively
or negatively impact teacher practice? Five positive factors were identified in the
case study that impacted teacher practice: the communication of appreciation, a
structured discipline plan, school-wide expectations, frequent informal observa
tions, and professional development.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Communication of appreciation was a strategic way the leadership got
teachers energized about doing their job at Snicks. The appreciation gestures helped
the morale and camaraderie between the teachers and the administration. The
teachers appreciated the recognition they were given for doing a good job.
A school-wide discipline plan gave the teachers and students a sense of
safety on campus because of its structure and consistency (e.g., teachers supervis
ing in the hallways, the nine-step process for writing referrals, and the tardy
sweeps). The teachers perceived that they were supported by the administration and
that they were consistent with the consequences that were given to the students.
Teachers also appreciated the quiet, calm environment that was beneficial for
teaching students.
School-wide expectations, such as writing across the curriculum, served to
improve the school in a powerful. By implementing writing across the curriculum,
both teachers and students benefited. As documented by the increased state scores,
the practice of writing on a regular basis helped students to organize and express
their thoughts, which essentially made them better learners. In addition, the school-
wide element made teachers and students aware of the power that can result when
focus is geared toward a specific goal. The energy that the staff put in to the school-
wide expectations, including living the vision, school-wide writing, and common
instructional tools, served as an example of their dedication for striving to achieve.
Frequent informal observations made the teachers accountable for their
teaching. The observations assured that all teachers were adhering to the common
components of teaching that the school had identified as important on the walk
through check-off sheet. The check-off sheet gave the teachers immediate feedback
from the observer. One teacher commented that she received more feedback from
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the check-off sheet than she did on her evaluation form. Informal observations
created an open door policy where teachers and students were aware that at any
given time an observer may be present in their classroom which served to keep
both teachers and teachers focused and on task.
The professional development that took place at Snicks not only impacted
teacher practice but also impacted student achievement. Teachers were trained on
targeted strategies that improved their teaching style, thereby increasing their
knowledge base, which ultimately positively impacted student achievement.
Professional activities were aligned with the school’s goals and objections.
Research Question 4: Contributions
by Leadership
Research question 4 asked, How does the site leadership team contribute to
improved teacher practice? The leader was visible and available to all students,
staff members, and parents. His presence made the teachers feel safe and supported.
He was viewed as part of the team and, thus, part of the solution. His practice of
empowering teachers made everyone share in the responsibility of student achieve
ment. His leadership style helped teachers to feel supported, allowing them to take
risks and develop new teaching strategies if they could be linked to improved
student achievement.
To make the leadership team successful, the principal had to hire the right
staff. He prided himself on his ability to use rigorous hiring methods to select the
“right” candidates that would fit the Snicks philosophy. He wanted teachers who
would buy into the school’s vision and teachers who would put the team first. This
focus improved teacher practice by creating a common set of goals and objectives.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
His leadership style encompassed the four leadership frames of Bolman and Deal
(2001), as reflected in his daily practices that enhanced his leadership success.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY
Statement o f the Problem
To ensure that teachers are doing a quality performance and being highly
effective in assisting students to achieve success, a constructive evaluation process
is necessary. The evaluation process is the main component holding teachers
accountable to assure parents that qualified and motivated teachers are teaching
their children. Although teacher evaluations have long been a condition of employ
ment, it is unknown whether they serve to improve teacher practice and thus have a
positive influence on student achievement.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the teacher evaluation
process impacted teacher performance in support of student learning. In order to
fully address this topic, interviews, observations, surveys, and document analyses
were used. The interviews were standardized open-ended interviews in which a
guide with prepared questions was used to help with the flow of the interviews. The
interviews delved into the teachers’ perceptions of the evaluation process and other
factors that were prevalent at the site that impacted teacher practice. The observa
tions allowed greater understanding of the day-to-day operations of the school and
the daily classroom activities. Through the surveys, the researcher obtained insight
into the teachers’ beliefs about the evaluation system. The document analysis
revealed the various features that formulated the school. Together, these
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instruments identified the components that maximized teachers’ performance and
its effect on student achievement.
Research Questions
The study focused on answering the following research questions:
1. How is the evaluation process practiced at the school site?
2. How does the teacher evaluation process impact teacher behavior?
3. What factors exist at the school that positively or negatively impact
teacher practice?
4. How does the site leadership team contribute to improved teacher
practice?
Methodology
A qualitative case study approach was used to identify the factors that
enabled a high-performing school to exceed its student achievement expectations.
The study was a mixed-methods qualitative approach. Using a qualitative design
approach versus a quantitative design allowed for interaction between the
researcher and the participants and data collection by observations, interviews, and
review and analysis of relevant literature and supporting documentation. According
to Gall et al. (2003), a case study methodology offers flexibility in design and
brings to life a phenomena that are of interest to the researcher. This study was one
of 15 completed through a thematic dissertation process. All components, including
the research questions, purpose, instrumentation, and methodology, were the same
for the 15 studies. The results were examined in search of common themes so that
continued research on the teacher evaluation process and its impact on student
achievement could be performed.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sample and Population
The school was an urban middle school located in southern California.
Snicks Middle School (pseudonym) had not only met but had exceeded its API
target for the past 2 years. The school district of which Snicks Middle School was a
part was centrally located and served more than 95,000 students from prekinder
garten through grade 12. Approximately one half of the school district population
were ELL, and over 40% of the students qualified for Title I assistance. Snicks
Middle School was a Title I school, where 86% of the 1,134 students received free
or reduced-price lunches. The school was on a traditional school schedule, unlike
most of the middle schools in the district, which were on a year-round schedule.
According to the SARC, the average class size was 24.5 students in English, 27.2
in Mathematics, 30.5 in Science, and 31.3 in Social Science.
The student population reflected that of an urban school, but the school was
located in an affluent area. There were 404 sixth-grade students, 361 seventh-grade
students, and 369 eighth-grade students. The ethnic breakdown of the school was
African American 16.9%, American Indian 0.03%, Asian 13.9%, Filipino 1.9%,
Hispanic 52.3%, Pacific Islander 1.1%, and White 13.6%. Veteran and new
teachers who taught grades 6 through 8 were included in the study. All 46 of the
teachers were “highly qualified” under the specifications of NCLB. The study also
included onsite administrators: one principal and one assistant principal.
Conclusions
Research has shown that several effective school practices and programs are
essential to student achievement. Sample practices and programs include leader
ship, vision, standards-based instruction, professional development, and community
involvement. All components are important to the success of a school; however,
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not every one of these components is necessary for a school to be effective.
Research has shown a correlation between effective leadership and positive aca
demic achievement. However, positive leadership is not the only factor influencing
school performance. Other factors, including teacher evaluation, professional
development opportunities, and culture, also affect the school’s performance.
As indicated by the data collected at this high-performing urban middle
school, the teacher evaluation process had little or no impact on teacher practice.
The school’s successful performance was, for the most part, attributed to other
factors, such as leadership, collaboration, culture of learning, professional develop
ment, and school-wide focus.
Based on the data obtained from the field observations, surveys, interviews,
and document review, it was evident that the principal had implemented a variety
of measures to promote a positive school culture and enhance student performance.
The principal had fostered a shared vision through collaboration, professional
development activities, and shared decision making. It was apparent that each
teacher assumed responsibility and ownership for the success of each student,
sharing a sincere belief that each student could succeed.
Recommendations
The next steps are to continue research to understand the complex nature of
teacher evaluation and the other factors that contribute to student achievement.
Implications
The results from the findings and conclusions of this research may not be
generalizable to all other schools but they have generated several implications and
recommendations for the educational system. As the educational system nation-
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
wide continues to evaluate and measure success by student test results and teacher
practice, the school system must persist to formulate changes to the evaluation
process that will reflect the true capabilities of the teacher.
Implications fo r Administrators
and Teachers
A teacher evaluation system must be created that includes both summative
and formative components. Summative evaluations are designed to measure teacher
competence. However, summative evaluations lack the ability to serve as an
improvement tool. Teachers need to be supported through feedback that will help
them to improve and that will measure their improvement. Evaluations can no
longer be only summative. Teacher evaluations have to be an element of a larger
system of accountability, professional development, and observations of classroom
activities. Formative evaluations set teacher goals and objectives early in the year
that are tracked throughout the year, which assists in assessing achievements at the
end of the year. Formative evaluations allow for a more reflective process where
weaknesses and strengths are identified, allowing for adjustments to teaching
practices.
Implications fo r Other
Stakeholders
Policymakers should recognize that teachers are professionals and that the
teacher evaluation system should be revisited. Even though there have been many
educational reforms over the past 35 years, changes in the teacher evaluation
process have not been parallel. The Stull Act, as an evaluation tool, has been
California law since 1971; it is outdated in meeting the changing needs of today’s
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classrooms. Teacher evaluation policies must encourage evaluation systems that
assess teacher practice from multiple perspectives.
One barrier that must be addressed before the restructuring of the current
evaluation process can take place is the teacher’s union role in the collective
bargaining. The teachers’ unions must recognize the benefit of improving the
teacher evaluation process so they will be supportive of the changes in the process.
In the past, unions have been a strong proponent of “by the book” attitude. Unions
were fearful that evaluations that were more subjective would lead to favoritism or
targeted punishment, which implies that administration is still seen as authoritative
and punitive rather than members of the team working toward constant
improvement.
It is recommended that principals and school leadership create a school
culture that is indicative of a learning community. Portfolio assessment, peer
coaching, and professional development opportunities can be coupled with the
traditional Stull evaluation to provide a more meaningful instrument for evaluating
teachers, one in which teachers receive feedback on their practices and suggestions
for improvement.
Recommendations fo r Future Study
The current study examined teacher evaluation and its impact on teacher
practice. Although the teacher evaluation process was not a dominant feature in this
school’s success, nor did it impact teacher practices, it served as an indication to
discuss improvement of the teacher evaluation policy and implementation. The
results of this case study suggest the following recommendations for future study.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Future research should be conducted to determine what factors impact
teacher practice at other high-performing schools.
2. Further research should determine whether the current Stull evaluation
process is a meaningful evaluation tool in measuring teacher practice. Do other
high-performing schools utilize other evaluation tools in addition to the Stull
evaluation in their evaluation of teacher practice?
3. Future research should determine whether there is a correlation between
student achievement and teacher performance as reflected in the evaluation.
4. Future research should determine whether other factors, such as
professional development activities, collaboration, and school culture, influence
teacher practice.
5. Future research should replicate the current study to assess teacher
evaluation and its impact on teacher practice in other schools and populations.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. (1994). A primer on school accountability. Retrieved June 21, 2003, from
http://edreform.com/pubs/accountl.htm
Ambach, G. (1996, November). Standards for teachers: Potential for improving
practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 207-210.
Ascher, C., & Schwartz, W. (1987). Keeping track o f at-risk students. New York:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Berger, J. (2000). Does top-down, standards-based reform work? A review of the
status of statewide standards-based reform. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 57-65.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bliss, J. R., Firestone, W. A., & Richards, C. E. (Eds.). (1991). Rethinking effective
schools research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war (2nd ed.).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1985). The effective principal: Perspectives on
school leadership (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1990). Leadership orientations. Brookline, MA:
Leadership Frameworks.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey o f
spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G., (1998, September). Tinkering with TIMSS. Phi Delta Kappan. Re
trieved July 26,2004, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbra9809.htm
Brandt, R. (1985). On teaching and supervision: A conversation with Madeline
Hunter. Educational Leadership, 42(5), 61-66.
Brandt, R. (1996). On a new direction for teacher evaluation: A conversation with
Tom McGreal. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 30-33.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Briars, D. J. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential ele
ments o f standards-based school improvement. Berkeley, CA: University of
California, Graduate School of Education, Center for the Study of Evalua
tion, Standards and Student Testing.
Buttram, J. L., & Wilson, B. L. (1987). Promising trends in teacher evaluation.
Educational Leadership, 44(7), 4-7.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997). California standards for
the teaching profession. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://www.cde
.gov.org
California Department of Education. (2004). Education code. Retrieved October
16, 2005, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/calawquery?codesection=
edc&codebody=&hits=20
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and
others don’ t. New York: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits o f visionary
companies. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
Coutts, J. D. (1999). Turning the comer: Quality education through monitoring in
struction. National Association o f Secondary School Principals, 83, 110-
112.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dagley, D., & Orso, J. (1991). Integrating summative, formative modes of evalua
tion. NASSP Bulletin, 75, 72-82.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation: Educational leadership.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A
review of the literature. Review o f Educational Research, 533, 285-328.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession.
Elementary School Journal, 86, 531-551.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Teacher quality and equality. Unpublished paper
prepared for the College Board’s Project on Access to Learning, retrieved
July 22,2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-4/good.htm
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses
from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ball, L., & Loewenberg, D. (1998). Teaching for high stan
dards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do. Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart o f leader
ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Debray, E. (2003, Spring). The federal role in school accountability: Assessing
recent history and the new law. Voices in Urban Education, 56-64.
Denner, P. R., Salzman, S. A., & Bangert, A. W. (2001). Linking teacher assess
ment to student performance: A benchmarking, generalizability, and valid
ity study of the use of teacher work samples. Journal o f Personnel Evalua
tion in Education, 15, 287-307.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15.
Duke, D. (1993, May). Removing barriers to professional growth. Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 702-712.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment:
An investigation of a path model. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision,
18(2), 110-141.
Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative
supervision on teachers’ trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and ef
ficacy. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 14, 351-378.
Edmonds, R. R. (1981). Making public schools effective. Social Policy, 23, 56-60.
EdSource. (2000). National accountability movement offers lessons for California.
Palo Alto, CA: EdSource, Inc. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from
http ://www. edsource.org/pdf
Ed Source. (2002). California’ s student data system: In need o f improvement. Re
trieved October 21, 2003, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/ forum01.pdf
EdSource. (2005). Clarifying complex education issues. Retrieved April 26, 2005,
from www.edsource.org/glo.cfin
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race
matter in the 1960s? “Coleman” revisited. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse
for Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389
693)
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ellet, C. D., & Garland, J. (1987). Teacher evaluation practices in our largest
school districts: Are they measuring up to “state-of-the-art” systems? Jour
nal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(1), 69-92.
Ellet, C. D., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and
school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal o f Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 77(1), 101-128.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Enz, B. J., & Searfoss, L. W. (1993). Who evaluates teacher performance? Mis
matched paradigms, the status quo, the missed opportunities. Princeton, NJ:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurements, and Evaluation. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 361 915)
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional
leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 598-606.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduc
tion (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gandal, M., & Vranek, J. (2001). Standards: Here today, here tomorrow. Educa
tional Leadership, 59, 6-13.
Geringer, J. (2003). Reflections on professional development: Toward high-quality
teaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 373-380.
Gitlin, A., & Smyth, J. (1989). Teacher evaluation: Educative alternatives. Lon
don: Falmer.
Glickman, C. D. (2001). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental
approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Goldrick, L. (2002). Improving teacher evaluation to improve teaching quality:
Issue brief. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association, Center for
Best Practices.
Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture. Leadership, 32, 32-35.
Goodwin, B. (1999). Improving teaching quality: Issues and policies (policy brief).
Aurora, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Griffin, G. A. (1985). Teacher induction: Research issues. Journal o f Teacher Edu
cation, 93, 339-348.
Griffith, J. (1999). The school leadership/climate relation: Identification of school
configurations associated with change in principals. Educational Ad
ministration Quarterly, 35, 267-291.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Guillaume, A. M., & Yopp, H. K. (1995). Professional portfolios for student teach
ers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(1), 93-101.
Gullatt, D. E., & Ballard, L. M. (1998). Choosing the right process for teacher
evaluation. American Secondary Education, 25(3), 13-17.
Haselkom, D., & Harris, L. (2001). The essential professional: California educa
tion at the crossroads. Santa Cruz, CA: Recruiting New Teachers and
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Hausman, C., Crow, G., & Sperry, D. (2000). Portrait of the “ideal principal”:
Context and self. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 5-14.
Hertling, E. (1999). Peer review o f teachers. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.
Hickman, C. R., & Silva, M. R. (1984). Creating excellence. New York: New
American Library.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Sigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teach
ing profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educa
tional Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hogan, T. P. (1985). Measurement implications o f “ A Nation at Risk. ” Princeton,
NJ: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurements, and Evaluation.
Holland, P. E., & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between in
structional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. Interna
tional Journal o f Leadership in Education, 5, 221-241.
Hoy, W., Tarter, J., & Kottkamp R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools:
Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, M. (1986). Madeline Hunter replies: Develop collaboration, build trust.
Educational Leadership, 43(6), 68-70.
Ingram, D., & Colby, J. (1998, April). Taking standards beyond the classroom: A
process for implementation. Paper presented at the AERA Conference, San
Diego, CA.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership fo r student learning: Re
inventing theprincipalship. Washington, DC: Author.
Jamentz, K. (1998). Standards: From document to dialogue. San Francisco:
WestEd.
Johnson, J., Livingston, M., Schwartz, R., & Slate, J. (2000). What makes a good
elementary school. Journal o f Educational Research, 93, 339-348.
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge o f the new superin
tendency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kasarda, J. D. (1989). Urban industrial transition and the underclass. Annals o f the
American Academy o f Political and Social Science, 501, 26-47.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59,
861-863.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kumrow, D., & Dahlen, B. (2002). Is peer review an effective approach for evalu
ating teachers? Clearing House, 75, 238-241.
Ladd, H. F. (Ed.). (1996). Holding schools accountable : Performance-based
reform in education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Lewis, A. (1995). An overview of the standards movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
744-750.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Creating intentional learning communities. Educational
Leadership, 54(3), 51-55.
Lindheim, A. (2003). A first look at teacher supervision models and their effects.
Unpublished paper, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Lofton, G., Hill, F., & Claudet, J. (1997). Can state-mandated teacher evaluation
fulfill the promise of school improvement? Events in the life of one school.
Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 139-165.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strate
gies for every teacher. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instructions
that work: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massel, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-
based systemic reform in nine states. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.
McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McKeon, D. (1994, May). When meeting “common” standards is uncommonly dif
ficult. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 45-48.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining
teacher evaluation. In J. Milliman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new
handbook o f teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary
school teachers (pp. 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Pfeifer, R. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation, improvement,
accountability, and effective learning. New York: Teachers College Press of
Columbia University.
Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miranda, L. (1991). Latino children. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.
Mohr, N., & Dichter, A. (2001, June). Building a learning organization. Phi Delta
Kappan, 744-747.
Moore, Z., & Bond, N. (2002). The use of portfolios for in-service teacher assess
ment: A case study of foreign language middle-school teachers in Texas.
Foreign Language Annals, 35, 85-92.
Mullis, L., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. (1990). Accelerating academic achieve
ment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Re
trieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.goalline.org/Goal%20Line/
NatAtRisk.html
No Child Left Behind Actof2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, se c tio n llll (b)(1)
(2001). Retrieved October 13, 2003, from http://www.NoChildLeftBehind
•gov
Nomura, K. (1999). Learning to lead. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29( 1),
18-20.
Obiakor, F. E. (2000). Redefining “ good” schools: Quality and equity in education.
Distinguished Visiting Professor Presentation, Position Paper #1, University
of West Virginia, July 9, 2000. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED449575)
Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership for America’ s schools. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Paige, R. (2002). Education Secretary Paige addresses first annual Teacher Qual
ity Evaluation Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa
tion. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/news/
speeches/2002/06/061102.html
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Papanastasiou, E. C. (1999). Teacher evaluation: Theories and practice. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Perkins, P. G., & Gelfer, I. G. (1993). Portfolio assessment of teachers. The Clear
ing House, 66, 235-237.
Protheroe, N. (2002). Improving instruction through teacher observation. Principal,
82, 48-51.
Richert, A. E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of program
structure. Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 22, 509-527.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Fran
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvements (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel
opment.
Schugurensky, D. (2002). Selected moments o f the 20th century. Toronto: Univer
sity of Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Scriven, M. (1981) Summative teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-
Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook o f teacher evaluation: Assessing ele
mentary and secondary schools (pp. 244-271). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Lead
ership, 41(5), 4-13.
Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington,
DC: National Research Council, Center for Education, Division of Behav
ioral and Social Science and Education.
Shiller, R. E. (1994). Application materials for school improvement: Professional
development funding to intermediate school district superintendents.
Lansing: Michigan Department of Education.
Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. Thou
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sprick, R., Garrison, M., and Howard, L. (1998). Safe and civil schools: Champs, a
proactive approach to classroom management. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and
kin support networks o f U.S.-Mexican youth. Montpelier, VT: Teachers
College Press.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Starratt, R. J. (1997). Should supervision be abolished? Yes. In J. Glanz & R.
Nevill (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspective, issues, and controver
sies (pp. 4-12). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Stiggins, R., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). Performance assessment for teacher de
velopment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 1-10.
Stone, S. (1995). Teaching strategies, portfolios: Interactive dynamic instructional
tool. Childhood Education, 71, 232-234.
Tesh, R. (1990). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Re
trieved July 10, 2004, from http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/theses/pilote/
stpierre/these_back.html
Thomas, M., & Bainbridge, W. (2001). “All children can learn”: Facts and falla
cies. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 660-662.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum De
velopment.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study o f nine
high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Retrieved July
28, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html
Waters, J., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years o f research tells us about the effect o f leadership on student achieve
ment. Retrieved October 10, 2003, from http://www.mcrel.org/topics/
productDetail.asp?topicsID=7 &productID= 144
Weiss, E., & Weiss, S. (1998). Approaches to evaluation. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teacher and Teacher Education.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that
matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Wilcox, B., & Tomei, L. (1999). Professional portfolios for teachers. Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Wise, A. E. (1984). Case studies for teacher evaluation: A study o f effective prac
tices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Wise, A. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Teacher evaluation and teacher pro
fessionalism. Educational Leadership, 42, 28-33.
Wood, F. H., & Lease, S. A. (1987). An integrated approach to staff development,
supervision, and teacher evaluation. Journal o f Staff Development, 8, 52-55.
Xu, Y. (2004). Teacher portfolios: An effective way to assess teacher performance
and enhance learning. Childhood Education, 80(4), 198-201.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At cross-purpose: What do teachers need,
want, and get from supervision? Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision,
14(1), 68-87.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
INFORMATIONAL CONTACT SHEET
Interview Participants Needed
Thank you to all who recently completed the USC survey. As you may know, Snicks
Middle School was selected to be one of fifteen Southern California schools studied by
researchers from the Rossier School of Education at USC. Your school was selected due to
the enormous success you have achieved over the last two years on the state and federal
accountability measures in spite of being an urban school with a large population of “at-
risk” students that qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch program. Put simply, you are
one of the few highly successful, urban elementary schools in Southern California.
We are very interested in gathering your perceptions as a member of the staff with regard
to how you have achieved such remarkable student success. We are also interested in the
role that the teacher evaluation and supervision process may have played in that success.
Your participation in a completely confidential interview would be invaluable to our re
search. The interview will take no longer than one hour and can be done at a time of your
convenience. Your name and position will be kept completely confidential and will not be
used in the study. Furthermore, no staff members or administrators will know the identity
of anyone participating in an interview.
If you would like to participate, please put your name and a phone number or e-mail
address you can be contacted at below. Then you can seal this flyer in the attached self-
addressed stamped envelope and return it via U.S. Postal Mail Service. Or, if you would
rather contact the researcher directly, please email me at pgutierr@usc.edu. As a show of
appreciation, those that agree to be interviewed will be given a $35.00 gift certificate.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights on your success.
Your Name __________________________________________________________
Contact Information (phone and/or email)
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
A Closer Look at Teacher Evaluation
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Peggy Gutierrez, B.A., M.A., and
Stuart Gothold, Ed.D. (faculty advisor), from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are a certificated teacher classified as a 'highly qualified teacher"
as defined by No Child Left Behind, and employed at a school that serves high poverty students and
is considered high performing.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you indicated in the first portion of
this study that you were interested in participating in an interview. A total of 10 subjects will be
selected from Snicks Middle School to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read
the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether or not to participate
• PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To determine how the teacher evaluation process, and other practices, impacts teacher performance
in support of student learning in urban schools which are improving in student achievement. The
focus is to identify effective evaluation practices that have an impact on student learning.
• PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
Participate in a one hour tape recorded interview with Peggy Gutierrez. The recording will be tran
scribed by the investigator.
During the interview, you will be asked to evaluate the teacher evaluation process as it pertains to
your school site, as well as the supervision process of your administrators. It should be noted that
you will not be asked to single out an individual by name, but instead will be asking about groups of
people such as administrators or teachers.
• POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Any discomforts you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering
these questions. The interviewees will not be identified during the interview by their name.
• POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this research study. However, it is hoped that that
the results may lead to better practice of the teacher evaluation process in schools, which, in turn
may benefit students at those schools.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
• There will be no payment for participation in this study.
•
• CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity. If audiotape recordings of you will be used for educational
purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised by the researcher. Audio-tapes will be secured
and stored in the office of the principal investigator and destroyed one year after the completion of
the study. You have the right to review and/or edit your transcript in the presence of the researcher.
Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored, and secured in the
home of the investigator. Only the investigator will have access to the data. All remaining data will
be destroyed three years after the study has been completed. Your name will not be recorded at
anytime. All audio-tapes used in interviews during this study will be destroyed three year after the
completion of the study.
• PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any ques
tions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you
from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
• IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Peggy Gutierrez
at pgutierrez@usc.edu or Dr. Stuart Gothold at gothold@usc.edu.
• RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are
not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject
in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfac
tion, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
□ I agree to be audio-taped □ I do not agree to be audio-taped
Name of Subject Date
Signature of Subject
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SIG.XA TURK O F /.\7 FISTIC,A TOR
I have explained the research to the subject, and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that
he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator_______________________________ Date (must be the same as subject’s- )
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
TEACHER EVALUATION SURVEY
A research group is very interested in gathering your perceptions as a member of the staff with
regard to the direct and indirect factors affecting the teacher evaluation and supervision process, and
other practices currently taking place at this school. Attached is a short survey containing a series of
statements and open-ended questions for you to answer based on your knowledge/experience at the
school. Your assistance is crucial to the project; we thank you for your voluntary participation in
this important research.
DIRECTIONS
Please answer all questions as completely and accurately as possible.
Circle the most appropriate response.
Background Information:
1) Number of years as a teacher: (circle one) 0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-19 yrs. 20yrs.+
2) Number of years at this location: (circle one) 0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-19 yrs. 20 yrs.+
3) Participant in the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)? Yes No
4) If yes, what was your role? Support Provider Beginning Teacher Both
5) What is your highest academic degree? (check one)
# Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S., etc.)
A Bachelors degree plus additional units
Master’s degree (M.A., M.S, etc.)
Doctoral degree (Ph.D., or Ed.D., J.D. etc)
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey: Teacher Evaluation and Supervision (Teacher Version)
Please be as honest as possible. Your responses are completely confidential and will only be
used to produce findings on issues related to this study on teacher evaluation and supervision.
Please rate each of the statements below on a four-point Likert Scale as follows:
0 = Strongly Disagree 1 = Disagree 2 = Agree 3 = Strongly Agree
Policy: Teachers ’ knowledge and perceptions o f official documents regarding the teacher evalua
tion process.
SD D A SA
1) I am aware of and understand the district’s policy
regarding teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
2) I agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
Teacher Evaluation: The extent to which the administration actively participated in the formal
evaluation process, as mandated by the California Education Code, which may have included ob
servations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement strategies.
SD D A SA
3) My administrator frequently observes my classroom
for the purpose of evaluation. 0 1 2 3
4) My administrator and I often discuss the instructional
strategies I use in my classroom. 0 1 2 3
5) I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher
evaluation policies as an integral part of my professional growth. 0 1 2 3
6) When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks for
things which we agreed upon at pre-conference 0 1 2 3
7) I receive timely and meaningful feedback regarding my
teaching observations. 0 1 2 3
8) I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate
my instructional practice. 0 1 2 3
9) There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g. PAR,
portfolio, etc.) available at my school site. 0 1 2 3
Ongoing Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participated in a
supervision process through observations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement
strategies.
SD D A SA
10) The administration frequently observes my classroom. 0 1 2 3
11) Other instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors,
BTSA/PAR support providers, etc.) frequently observe
my classroom. 0 1 2 3
12) I see the administration’s supervision of instruction as
non-evaluative and separate from the formal evaluation process. 0 1 2 3
13) I believe that my administration’s supervision of instruction
improves my instructional practice. 0 1 2 3
14) I believe that other instructional support staffs feedback regarding
my instruction improves my instructional practice. 0 1 2 3
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Efforts: Teacher’ s perception o f school-based procedures and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may have led to school improvement.
SD D A SA
15) I have multiple opportunities throughout the year to
participate in professional development activities 0 1 2 3
16) Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on instructional matters
on a regular basis. 0 1 2 3
17) I have a clear understanding of the professional development
goals for my school. 0 1 2 3
18) Teacher have an active role in developing professional
Development goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3
School Culture: Teacher’ s perception o f “ the way we do things around here. ’’
SD D A SA
19) I am comfortable going to my school administrators for support. 0 1 2 3
20) I am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 0 1 2 3
21) The goals and objectives of this school have contributed to
our school’s improvement. 0 1 2 3
22) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of the administration 0 1 2 3
23) Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and instruction impact
our school’s ability to improve 0 1 2 3
24) Teachers have an active role in initiating efforts towards
school improvement. 0 1 2 3
25) The majority of school improvement efforts at this school have
been initiated by the district and/or site administration. 0 1 2 3
Please provide feedback to each question below.
1) Describe which experiences and/or activities have the greatest impact on your
teaching practice and professional development.
2) Describe which experiences and/or activities have the greatest impact on
student achievement at this school.
3) Describe which types of interactions with administration impact your teaching practices,
either positively or negatively?
4) Describe which types of interactions with colleagues and other staff members impact your
teaching practices, either positively or negatively?
3) What do you feel are the most important factors that have contributed to student learning at
this school?
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Research Questions Interview Questions
Research Ouestion One:
How is the teacher evaluation
process practiced at the school site?
Describe the evaluation process at the school site?
• Suggested Follow Un: How involved are vou
in developing your evaluation for the school
year?
• Suggested Follow Un: Are vou familiar with
all the documents you need to complete for
your evaluation?
• Suggested Follow Un: How do vou know
what your principal is looking for during your
classroom observation?
• Suggested Follow Un: Does vour nrincioal
share with you what s/he observed during the
observation? How?
• Suggested Follow Un: How manv
observations do you have in your formal
evaluation year? What is the duration of each
observation?
• Suggested Follow Un: Are vour contractual
guidelines from the collective bargaining
agreement integrated into your evaluation
process?
Are there any modifications that you recommend for the
teacher evaluation process? Why?
Research Ouestion Two:
How does the teacher evaluation
process impact teacher behavior?
Is there anything in the evaluation process that makes a
difference in your teaching practices?
Do administrative recommendations have an effect on your
teaching practice? Why or why not?
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Ouestion Three:
What factors exist at the school that
positively or negatively impact
teacher practice? (Do you believe
that teacher evaluation is connected
to teacher practice?)
Do you consider this school successful? Why or why not?
• Suggested Follow Un: To what extent does
your school culture impact your teaching
practice?
• Suggested Follow Un: To what extent does
professional development impact your teaching
practice?
• Sueeested Follow Un: To what extent does
collaboration and collegiality impact your
teaching practice?
• Suggested Follow Un: To what extent does
leadership impact your teaching practices?
What school programs and/or strategies have been imple
mented to improve teacher practice?
Are any of these factors connected to teacher evaluation?
Tell me why or how?
Research Ouestion Four:
How does the district/site leadership
influence the teacher evaluation
process?
Does the district office leadership contribute to improved
teacher practice? How?
Does the school’s leadership contribute to improved teacher
practice? How?
Who do you view as school leaders and how do they impact
teacher practices?
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
SITE ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Site Administrators: Assistant Principals:
How is it decided who you will evaluate each year?
Have you received any training on how to observe/evaluate teachers?
Do you feel you have the necessary knowledge to properly evaluate teachers?
What would you like more training on?
How do you follow-up to see if your suggestions to teachers are acted upon?
Are you satisfied that your school’s evaluation system accurately identifies teach
ers’ abilities, from poor to excellent?
What happens to teachers who are identified as weak, average or excellent?
Do you attribute your school’s recent success in any way to your evaluation prac
tices?
What changes would you make?
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
OBSERVATION SURVEY
# Yes No
1 The campus is clean and well-kept.
2 There are display cases throughout the school showing awards,
student work, and important events.
3 There is a sense of safety and security on campus.
4 There is positive interaction between the staff and administration.
5 There is positive school spirit displayed by staff and students alike.
6 Staff members are familiar with the vision and can speak to the goals
of the vision.
7 There is a local reward/recognition program in place for students and
staff.
8 Describe the leadership style of the administration:
Y) Distributed N) Top-Down
9 There is positive interaction between the staff, students, parents, and
community.
10 There is positive interaction between the staff and administration.
11 The administration is visible in all areas of the school.
12 The office is warm and friendly when customers enter.
13 There are rituals and events throughout the year to mark positive
learning, social, and environmental happenings.
14 Teachers are engaged in school activities
15' The administration has positive interactions with students.
16 There is a friendly and positive environment in staff meetings.
17 Students remain on task when administrators enter the classroom.
18 Substitutes are considered effective instructors.
19 Content standards for the lesson are visible.
20 The agenda/ objectives are visible to the students.
21 Student work is displayed in the classroom.
22 Guided practice was observed during the lesson.
23 A variety of learning activities (direct instruction, lecture, group work,
projects, etc...) are utilized in the classroom.
24 High levels of questioning are evident in observed lessons.
25 Assessments demonstrate multiple measures to evaluate student work.
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
DOCUMENT REVIEW TEMPLATE
Title o f Document
Date of Review
Type of Document
Author/Decision-
Maker
Location of
Source
How closely is this
document related
to school policy on
teacher
evaluation?
How closely is this
document related
to other school
level efforts?
Linkages stated
within document
to improve
practice
Reflections
Further questions
for consideration
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Title of Document Date of
Review
Notes
Stull Evaluation Forms
(school, district)
Stull Bill
Legislation/Education
Code 44660-44665
Collective Bargaining
Agreement
California Standards for
the Teaching Profession
(CSTP)
Single Plan for Student
Achievement
School Professional
Development Plan
Accreditation/Program
Quality Review
Demographic Data
No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Legislation
Meeting Minutes
Board Policy (ies)
District Memorandum/
Policy Bulletins
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H
TEACHER EVALUATION SURVEY RESULTS
Questions on the Survey tallied in percentages D A
I am aware of and understand the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. 6% 94%
I agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s policy on teacher evaluation. 12% 88%
My administrator frequently observes my classroom for the purpose of evaluation. 44% 56%
My administrator and I often discuss the instructional strategies I use in my classroom. 31% 69%
I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher evaluation policies as an integral part of my profession.. 19% 81%
When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks for things which we agreed upon at a pre-conference. 12% 88%
I receive timely and meaningful feedback regarding my teaching observations. 12% 88%
I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate my instructional practice. 56% 44%
There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g. PAR, portfolio, etc.) available at my school site. 38% 62%
The administration frequently observes my classroom. 21% 79%
Other instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors, BTSA/PAR support providers, etc.) frequently... 37% 63%
I see the administration’s supervision of instruction as non-evaluative and separate from the formal evaluation... 37% 63%
I believe that my administration’s supervision of instruction improves my instructional practice. 6% 94%
I believe that other instructional support staff’s feedback regarding my instruction improves my instructional... 6% 94%
I have multiple opportunities throughout the year to participate in professional development activities. 0% 100%
Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on instructional matters on a regular basis. 0% 100%
I have a clear understanding of the professional development goals for my school. 12% 88%
Teachers have an active role in developing professional development goals and objectives. 18% 82%
I am comfortable going to my school administrators for support. 0% 100%
I am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 19% 81%
The goals and objectives of this school have contributed to our school’s improvement 24% 76%
I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership ability of the administration. 12% 88%
Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and instruction impact our school’s ability to improve. 6% 94%
Teachers have an active role in initiating efforts towards school improvement. 31% 69%
The majority of school improvement efforts at this school have been initiated by the district and/or site... 0% 100%
0\
u >
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX I
OBSERVATION SURVEY RESULTS
#
Question % %
1
The campus is clean and well-kept. 100% 0%
2
There are display cases throughout the school showing awards, student work, and important events. 100% 0%
3
There is a sense of safety and security on campus. 94% 6%
4
There is positive interaction between the staff and administration. 88% 12%
5
There is positive school spirit displayed by staff and students alike. 100% 0%
6
Staff members are familiar with the vision and can speak to the goals of the vision. 88% 12%
7
There is a local reward/recognition program in place for students and staff. 100% 0%
8
Describe the leadership style of the administration: Yes) Distributed No) Top-Down (Distrib) 100% 0%
9
There is positive interaction between the staff, students, parents, and community. 82% 18%
10
The administration is visible in all areas of the school. 94% 6%
11
The office is warm and friendly when customers enter. 94% 6%
12
There are rituals and events throughout the year to mark positive learning, social, and environmental happenings. 88% 12%
13
Teachers are engaged in school activities 100% 0%
14
The administration has positive interactions with students. 94% 6%
15
There is a friendly and positive environment in staff meetings. 88% 12%
16
Students remain on task when administrators enter your classroom. 94% 6%
17
Do you consider substitutes to be effective instructors? 44% 56%
18
In your classroom, content standards for the lesson are visible. 94% 6%
19
In your classroom, the agenda/ objectives are visible to the students. 100% 0%
20
In your classroom, student work is displayed. 100% 0%
21
In your classroom, guided practice can be observed in daily lessons. 82% 8%
22
In your classroom, a variety of learning activities (direct instruction, lecture, group work, projects, etc...) are utilized. 82% 8%
23
In your classroom, high levels of questioning are evident in daily lessons. 69% 31%
24
In your classroom, assessments demonstrate multiple measures to evaluate student work. 94% 6%
0\
APPENDIX J
EVALUATEE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AGREEMENT
HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES
EVALUATEE GOALS AM) OBJECTIVES AGREEMENT
Name Schodcr Office Grade or Subject Date
I DISTRICT G O A L S...A M D . .QBJECIB^S.
GtVCa-
A statement of educational p fa slo so p ta y
Major otgatizational goals
Board adopted standards of student achievement
Etenienary courses of study
Secondary courses of study and outlines of courses
Continuums aid axricuium giudes for subject areas
Textbooks, state and local
Subject area sample goals aid objectives,
Certificated anptoyees shall anptemo* an evaluation program meeting fee nscpiieiM *
d the Sail Act Much win siptiiicaafly anpewe:
1 . bsmwKiaal afoiity to am ide wsffiroMe aid i»oto»tiing learning esjxsaeooes
fee students.
2. Admimstiative ability to prtmde learning oppomruities and leadership for persons
wttun schools aid offices,
3 . Leaner acqiustam of knowledge, attitudes, and skills Much will meet tlie
stutienfs needs and the needs of society, tooth errantly and in the f t m a r e .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I . INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL/OFFICE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (To be S lo p e d
by a committee of adtmMsirafee staff and faculty advisor}’ cosidttee)
A. Goals
B. Objectives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
II. CLASSROOM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (To be developed by fee classroom
teacher)
A. G oals.
B. Objectives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV. ACTIVITIES FOR ATTAINING OBJECTIVES (To be listed by t i n e - evaktatee)
V. CONSTRAINTS THAT MAY AFFECT ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES (To
be listed by tlie evaluates)
VI. STEPS TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE CONSTRAINTS
BvEvahatar
B y Evalnatee
Signing d x is form indicates & conference has been held _____________
regarding the goals and objectives of the evaluates. Evakaatee
Evaluator
Copies to:
Evaluator
Evaluates
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX K
CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL EVALUATION
HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES School Year
CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL EVALUATION
Eateti® Evaluation
Final Evaassxsft
PROBATIONARY____________ ____ Ptreummt
________________________ _____S sjTms_____________________Ttmpotaty Contract
EvaloaittsNatnt___________________________ _____2ad Y«r___________________ Special Contract
Il'v.Vf
Israeli
mms?
School or Offc*
T**ck*i>P«j>il MsssaossMpi
Personal Cbso-scteriitics
Evidtac* of Sound Professional Amtad* and Juifmnst
Evidea« of Papi! Profttss Toward Established Standards
Imtroctiooai Tecinutpsts, Skills,
and Strategies Used by Employ**
Adbtrtact to CBtficate Objectives
Soialsia Lt.Miuuf EmrifSMStat
Ptriismaaeeof Rwpn'wd Sttvicra
Other than CbtKoom ItKtructiM
& M S S 2
A5:si$asi«& ?
Isdmmk&tiMxm.frs'kAh
S SATISFACTORY. M**tt m txettds
expectations o/ih* lo af Stack
UmStd School District.
X NEEDS TO IMPROVE Dots not yet
matt tht long Stack Timfitd School
Hstritt’ s expectation but appears to
havt potential fee injmsvtajtat,
f INSATISFACTORV Ptt&nwac# »
not of the ®ulity sectptaMt foe
rttmplsyajtai ia S he Long Reach
Uaiibd School District,
D n s of Observations
EVALUATOR* S COMMENTSt
Signature o r* Evaluator Dow 5s:a
CoBtutntd StJTtct: ____ _ ___________________________
Date
..K tc e m ts ta la d ________KotR*coma»*»iJ*4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _
St*»»m»»fCMIs*r: ?srtfe*paate Date
Tbis wakattea loo Wen discssstd. with rat Signing this feta dots not necessarily m m tfw tt I agrat with all the tarings.
Dat» of Evaluation Coaftrea c« _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________
S^mttn* of Evaluate,
A copy of shit “ im am Evakatio®” may St placed in ysm ptEsonntl fil*.
______ A copy of this Final Eraloaoons will b* placed in yowr personnel SI*.
You bay* th* opportunity to mrimr a ic a a n t t drama in accordance with Educthon Cod* Section 44031, if you so desire Tta
(16) days tum O ra 4m «f this Final Evaluation this doctmrant and p w written response, if any, will be placed in your ptrsomttl Ski.
(CONTINUED ON BACK)
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL EVALUATION
Areas of Needed. Improvement
Suggestions and Procedures for Helping die Evaktatee Improve:
Evaluaree's Response:
Copies to: Human Resource Sen,ices
Evatatee
Er-aluator
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX L
SNICKS MIDDLE SCHOOL INFORMAL CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM
Teacher:____________________ Observer:____________________ Date:____________
Time In:______________ Time Out:_______________
Lesson Objective:
Checklist for Room Environment and Essential Elements:
_______ Objective Posted_______________________ ________ Lesson standards based
_______ Agenda Posted________________________ ________ Homework posted
_______ Student work posted _ _ _ _ _ Rubrics Posted
_______ Students wrote homework and classwork in their planners
________CHAMP Poster(s)_____________________ ________ Signal for students to quiet down
Evidence of:
Modeling and Active Participation-
Proving behavior tied to lesson objective-
Focus on school-wide goal(s)
Literacy or problem solving-
Social Responsibility-
Baldrige Strategies-
Differentiation -
To maximize student learning...
By Dissertation Cohort, University of Southern California, 2005.
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparative analysis of academic achievement for CalWORKs students in a K--12 public school system

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

Academic achievement of English -learning Latino students in relation to higher order thinking skills instruction

PDF

Emerging from the shadows of inner-city barriers: A California urban middle school that has outperformed its expectations

PDF

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

PDF

Improving student achievement: An urban success story

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

A case study of a successful urban school: Climate, culture and leadership factors that impact student achievement

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the media unified school district

PDF

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

PDF

HP2 schools achieving in spite of: A case study looks at programs, culture, and leadership

PDF

How districts and schools utilize data to improve the delivery of instruction and student performance: A case study

PDF

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

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

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

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

Factors influencing minority parents to place their children in private schools

PDF

A study of student retentiveness, achievement, and program completion in a school -to -career program

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Gutierrez, Peggy (author)

Core Title Effective school practices that facilitate improved student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,Education, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Clark, Richard (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-580599

Unique identifier UC11342283

Identifier 3236504.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-580599 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3236504.pdf

Dmrecord 580599

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gutierrez, Peggy

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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