University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF EVALUATION POLICY IN HAWAII

by

Lisa Nicole Christensen

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Lisa Nicole Christensen
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to public school teachers. To my teachers in Sonoma Valley
Unified School District and Hawaii Public Schools: thank you for investing in me and inspiring
in me a lifelong love of learning. To all the teachers I have had the good fortune to teach
alongside in Patterson Unified School District, Redondo Beach Unified School District, and
Lawndale Elementary School District: each of you inspire me to grow in my practice and renew
my passion for this profession each day. Your voices matter.

“Education: A debt due from present to future generations.” -George Peabody
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 3

Acknowledgements
The completion of this dissertation represents not only my effort, but the encouragement
and care of so many people in my life. I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Briana
Hinga for agreeing to become my chair at a challenging moment in my dissertation journey. I
have benefitted greatly from your insight, advice, guidance, and encouragement throughout this
process. I am likewise grateful for the guidance and support of Dr. Artineh Samkian and Dr.
Monique Datta.
I am forever indebted to my parents, Craig and Barbara Long. Throughout my life when I
have told you about my crazy dreams and plans you have always been encouraging. The
confidence you have in me gives me the courage to pursue my passions, mahalo nui loa. I am
also grateful to my incredible family and friends for your unfailing understanding, support, and
encouragement throughout this journey.
Studying at USC gave me the gift of being surrounded by so many thoughtful and
intelligent educational leaders who challenged me to think about education and my role as an
educator from a wide variety of perspectives. I am grateful to all of my classmates and professors
for the ways in in which I was pushed to become a more reflective practitioner. In particular I am
grateful to my writing group, Emily, Julie, Jenee, and Anthony: I am grateful for the many
weekend writes and stress-relieving laughs we shared throughout this process. Your
encouragement and check-ins helped me get to the finish line, “Write On, Fight On!”

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 14
Methods 14
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
Teacher Evaluation 16
Purpose of Evaluation 17
Current Methods of Teacher Evaluation 17
The Federal Government’s Role in Education Reform 24
Federal Policy 26
Policy Implementation 28
Teacher Perceptions of Education Reform Policy 29
Educational Change Framework 30
Four Characteristics of Change and Innovation 30
Local Context and Characteristics 39
Chapter Three: Methods 55
Introduction 55
Research Questions 55
Research Design 55
Hawaii Context 57
Teacher evaluation in Hawaii 58
Population and Sample 60
Description of the Sample 61
Instrumentation 62
Data Collection 63
Data Analysis 64
Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness 64
Limitations 65
Delimitations 66
Positionality and Biases 66
Ethics 67
Chapter Four: Findings 68
Research Sub-Question 1: Teacher Perceptions of EES 69
Need 69
Clarity 73
Complexity 79
Practicality/Quality 82
Summary 93
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 5

Research Sub-Question 2: Teacher Support and the Characteristics of Change 94
Need 95
Clarity 103
Complexity 108
Practicality and Quality 109
Summary 113
Research Sub-Question 3: Teacher Support and Local Characteristics 114
Support in the process 114
Administration messaging 118
Administrator preparedness to evaluate 121
Top-Down Reform 123
Summary 124
Conclusion 124
Chapter Five: Discussion 126
Introduction 126
Discussion of Findings 127
Research Sub-Question 1: Teacher Perceptions of Change 129
Research Sub-Question 2: Teacher Support and the Characteristics of Change 131
Research Sub-Question 3: Teacher Support and Local Characteristics 134
Implications for Practice 136
Recommendations for Research 138
Conclusion 139
References 140
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 150
Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet 155

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics 62
Table 2: Research Questions, Findings, and Literature 127

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 7

List of Figures
Figure 1: Characteristics of Change (Fullan, 2001) and Teacher Perceptions 31

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 8

Abstract
In 2010 the United States Department Education initiated the Race to the Top competitive
grant program to encourage comprehensive reform efforts in state education systems, with
special attention paid to reforming teacher evaluation systems. As a winner of an initial Race to
the Top grant Hawaii revamped its teacher evaluation system, creating the Educator
Effectiveness System (EES). The purpose of this study was to understand the teacher evaluation
system in Hawaii from the teacher perspective. The perspective of teachers is both unique and
essential to understand as teachers serve a dual purpose in policy implementation as both the
“agents of change” and “objects of reform” (Datnow & Park, 2009). This study used qualitative
methods to understand policy implementation using Fullan’s (2007) educational change
framework as a lens to understand teacher evaluation policy from the teacher perspective. Ten
secondary teachers currently teaching within one Complex Area in Hawaii Public Schools were
interviewed to better understand the perspective of teachers in relationship to the teacher
evaluation policy change. Ultimately, the goal for this study was to give voice to the teacher
perspective. Teachers supported change in teacher evaluation policy in Hawaii, but questioned
whether adequate support structures were in place to ensure the new evaluation policy was
influence teacher practice. Findings further revealed that teachers desired increased feedback and
clarity in the evaluation process. Teachers’ support of evaluation policy was influenced by
administrator messaging, support in the process, and perceptions of the practicality and quality of
the policy.

Key Words: teacher evaluation, Educator Effectiveness System, teacher perceptions, education
policy
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Large-scale federal policy aimed at spurring states into improving and making their
education systems more equitable are rooted in the original passage of the Elementary and
Secondary School Act (ESEA) in 1965. The reauthorization of the ESEA in 2001, in the iteration
known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), emphasized an inputs-based approach to education
reform and emphasized the need to improve teacher quality (Mangiante, 2010). Teachers were
considered “highly-qualified” if they demonstrated competency in a subject matter, through an
exam or a degree, and were fully certified in their state (Mangiante, 2010). The evolution of
considering outputs, such as student test scores, when defining teacher quality was showcased on
a national scale when President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) which brought with it the Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive grant program
aimed at infusing $4.35 billion into school reform efforts (United States Department of
Education, 2009). States applying for the grant were awarded points in six categories, the largest
point total was available in the category to strengthen and build effective evaluation systems for
both teachers and administrators (USDOE, 2009).
Scholars largely agree that traditional methods of teacher evaluation are flawed. Danielson
and McGreal (2000) assert that there are six main faults in current evaluations systems; outdated
criteria, lack of agreement on good practice, lack of accuracy in rating, top-down
communication, no differentiation of evaluation based on practitioner experience level, and
inadequate preparation of administrators to provide instructional leadership. These traditional
systems of teacher evaluation result in good or great ratings for all teacher, excellence amongst
teacher going unrecognized, little effort towards identifying areas of professional learning, no
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 10

differentiation for novice teachers, and no attention given to poor performance (Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). Weisberg et al. (2009) note that a phenomenon exists in
schools in which teachers are all assumed to be the same in terms of both effectiveness and the
need for development, a phenomenon they term the “Widget Effect.” While dissatisfaction with
instruments and methods used in teacher evaluations systems amongst scholars and policymakers
is clear, the perspectives of teachers on evaluation policy are less clear.
Discussions of teacher evaluation policy in contemporary education policy circles are often
tinged with divisive rhetoric. The singular purpose for teacher evaluations is often represented
and perceived as punitive rather than as an opportunity for teachers to improve their craft
(Popham, 1988). Evaluations are often portrayed as a way to point out the failings of teachers,
rather than an opportunity to guide professional growth, underpinned by an assumption that
many teachers are comfortable with complacency and must be forced to change (Toch &
Rothman, 2008). Evaluation framed in a punitive light creates an adversarial relationship
between educational stakeholders (Popham, 1988).
The tension underpinning changes in teacher evaluation policy can perhaps be understood
better when the absence of the teacher’s voice in evaluation policy discussions is brought to
light. Teachers work under to a persistent pressure to meet strict bureaucratic expectations while
also exhibiting a professional openness to a plethora of new ideas flowing into schools at a
nearly constant rate (van den Berg & Ros, 1999). The nearly constant pressure to conform to
bureaucratic mandates and maintain flexibility in a profession that garners little respect can result
in feelings of insecurity amongst teachers and cause them to be less willing to embrace new
policy (van den Berg & Ros, 1999). An unwillingness to embrace policy might also influence
teachers’ willingness to implement policy (van den Berg & Ros, 1999). Investigating how
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 11

teachers experience change as distinct from the intent of the change is critical to understanding
the success or failure of reform (Fullan, 2007). Research demonstrates that teacher perception
and buy-in is a critical factor in successful implementation and sustainability of education policy
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Bodilly, 1998; Bradshaw, 2002; Datnow, 2000; Kim & Youngs,
2016; Le Floch, Zhang, Kurki, & Hermann, 2006; Little, 1982; Odongo & Davidson, 2016). The
role teachers play in educational change makes the teacher perspective essential when seeking to
understand policy implementation.
Statement of the Problem
Although the American education system is highly decentralized and primarily under the
jurisdiction of individual states, federal policy still plays a substantial role in influencing
education reform movements, primarily through funding mechanisms. Most recently the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included money to reform teacher evaluation
methods through the competitive Race to the Top (RTTT) grant program. States applying for the
grant vied for grant money through a competitive process awarding points in different areas, the
most of which were available for revamping evaluation systems. Requirements for evaluation
include developing rigorous and transparent systems that take into account student growth data
and the input of teachers and principals (USDOE, 2009). Annual teacher evaluations were to be
completed annually and include timely feedback to inform professional growth plans (through
coaching, induction, or professional learning) and reward teachers deemed highly effective
through compensation or additional responsibilities (USDOE, 2009). Additionally, these
evaluation measures informed employment decisions including granting tenure and termination
of employment (USDOE, 2009). Race to the Top evaluation requirements were built on research
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 12

that asserted traditional evaluation processes for teachers were largely cursory and provided little
meaningful feedback to improve teaching practice.
Studies of change within organizations, such as the implementation of new evaluations
systems, traditionally focused on the perspective of “implementation agents” such as principals
(Tuytens & Devos, 2009). While curriculum and instruction changes are often studied from the
perspective of teachers, larger organizational changes rarely give voice to the teacher perspective
(Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Policy changes influence both organizations and individuals, so the
perspectives of both are essential to understanding the complexities of policy implementation
(Van der Vegt, Smyth, & Vandenberghe, 2001). Inattention to the concerns of teachers with
regards to new policy increases the risk of policy failure (Van der Vegt, Smyth, &
Vandenberghe, 2001). Therefore, this study sought to understand teacher perceptions of newly
adopted evaluation policy in Hawaii.
Purpose of the Study
Hawaii was amongst the first group of states awarded Race to the Top funding. The state was
awarded $75 million in 2010 to implement the comprehensive school reform plan outlined in its
grant application. As a winner of an initial Race to the Top grant Hawaii revamped its teacher
evaluation system, creating the Educator Effectiveness System (EES). The EES incorporates
multiple measures (observations, core professionalism, student learning objectives) to give
feedback on teacher performance. It was first piloted in the 2011-2012 school year and was put
into full implementation across the state during the 2013-2014 school year.
The purpose of this study was to understand the teacher evaluation system in Hawaii from
the teacher perspective. Understanding the teacher perspective on teacher evaluation policy can
help policymakers adjust requirements or deliver additional support in the form of training and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 13

materials (Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Additionally, understanding the teacher perspective can help
policymakers and school leaders better understand problems teachers experience with policy and
work to generate solutions (Tuytens & Devos, 2009).
Fullan (2007) offers a framework for understanding change that this study used as a lens
to frame the research. Fullan (2007) asserts that when change happens in schools the
implementation phase of the process is influenced by nine factors arranged into three categories
(1) characteristics of the change or innovation, (2) local characteristics, and (3) external factors.
This analysis of the implementation of the Educator Effectiveness System specifically focused
on the first two categories; characteristics of change or innovation and local characteristics. The
four characteristics of change that influence implementation are (a) need, (b) clarity, (c)
complexity, and (d) practicality to understand the teacher perspective of the implementation of
the Educator Effectiveness System (Fullan, 2007). Need focuses on the understanding that
teachers hold about the need for the policy in their local context (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos,
2009). Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the policy (Fullan,
2007). Complexity looks at the extent to which individuals need to change (knowledge, skills,
time, effort, etc.) to implement new policy (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Finally,
practicality/quality considers the feasibility of policy implementation in terms of practical
concerns such as availability of materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007). In his
seminal work on the change process Fullan (2007) found these characteristics to affect teachers’
implementation of innovations. Second, Fullan (2007) asserts that local characteristics such as
the district, principal, and teacher characteristics can influence teachers’ perceptions of change.
This study used Fullan’s model to qualitatively understand teachers’ perceptions of the EES.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 14

Research Questions
This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to answer the following overarching
question.
How do teachers in Hawaii perceive the Educator Effectiveness System?
The following sub-questions guided research:
1. How do teachers’ perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness system align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
2. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
3. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with local
characteristics (district, principal, teacher)?
Methods
This qualitative study looked specifically at how teachers perceive the teacher evaluation
system. Ten teachers in Hawaii with at least five years of experience, the expanse of the
implementation of the Educator Effectiveness System, were interviewed to understand their
perceptions about the Educator Effectiveness System. The semi-structured interviews were
conducted individually, via phone, with this group of secondary teachers within one complex
area of public schools in Hawaii. Ultimately, the goal of this study was to give voice to the
teacher perspective on EES and to understand the factors that influence their support of the
system.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 15

Definition of Terms
Educator Effectiveness System (EES) - “…a comprehensive process to evaluate teachers’
performance in the Hawaii State Department of Education to determine how to best target
supports for teacher growth and improvement.” (HIDOE, 2016).
Implementation - “…the extent to which teachers and students change their practices, beliefs,
use of new materials, and corresponding learning outcomes.” (Fullan, 2007)
Teacher Evaluation - Teacher evaluation is the process of collecting data and making
professional judgments about performance for the purpose of decision-making to include formal
and informal observations (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teacher evaluation. Chapter
Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of
teacher quality, school reform policy, professional development, and teacher evaluation methods
are addressed. Chapter Three details the methods used in this study when it comes to choice of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and findings are analyzed
and presented. Chapter Five provides a discussion of the findings, implications for practice, and
implication for further research.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 16

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Education policymakers are focusing policy efforts to improve student outcomes on
multiple fronts. A significant area of focus is improving teacher readiness and quality. The
prominence of teacher evaluation systems in reform efforts is increasingly significant and
controversial as reform efforts focus on teacher quality. Traditionally, teacher evaluation systems
are viewed as a perfunctory visit involving a checklist completed by an administrator once or
twice a year yielding information that was largely unused to improve instructional quality or
student outcomes (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Hallinger, Heck, & Murphy, 2014; Papay, 2012;
Tuytens & Devos, 2014; Weisberg et al., 2009). As federal, state, and local efforts focus on
improving teacher quality through teacher evaluation it is essential to understand the teacher
perspective on evaluation policy as their perception can influence implementation and
continuation of policy (Coburn, 2001, 2005; Kaufman, Wang, Hamilton, Thompson, & Hunter,
2017; Fullan, 2007; Spillane, 2000).
This literature review first discusses current teacher evaluation practice. Next, the general
history of federal education reform policy is discussed to provide context for the current teacher
evaluation reform effort. Finally, research on practitioner perceptions of reform and innovation
efforts is presented to illustrate the significance of practitioner perceptions on policy
implementation. Teacher perceptions of reform and innovation are discussed through the lens of
Fullan’s (2007) framework for understanding educational change.
Teacher Evaluation
Darling-Hammond (2013, p. 11) defines teacher quality as “…a bundle of personal traits,
skills, and understandings an individual brings to teaching, including dispositions to behave in
certain ways.” These traits and skills can be operationalized into five categories in which
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 17

teachers should show proficiency; strong content knowledge, knowledge of content pedagogy,
understanding of learners and their development, ability to organize and explain ideas, and
adaptive expertise (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Teacher evaluation is a way to measure, in both
formative and summative capacities, the quality and competency of teachers (Hunter, 1988;
Papay, 2012; Popham, 1988).
Purpose of Evaluation
Teacher evaluation can serve a dual purpose. First, it can serve as a formative assessment
to determine areas of strength and weakness and in turn guide professional growth for teachers
(Popham, 1988; Papay, 2012). If evaluation is used as a formative assessment, it is hoped that it
can inform and improve classroom practice (Stronge, 2006; Tuytens & Devos, 2014). Second,
evaluations can serve as a summative assessment measuring performance and assessing how
effectively teachers are doing their jobs (Papay, 2012; Popham, 1988; Stronge, 2006; Tuytens &
Devos, 2014). The assumptions underpinning evaluations as summative assessment are that this
type of evaluation provides incentives for teachers to improve their practice and to provide
justification for removing poorly performing teachers (Papay, 2012; Popham, 1988). Evaluations
as summative assessments can offer insight into the proficiencies of teachers, allowing leaders to
make informed staffing decisions (Tuytens & Devos, 2014). Hunter (1988) proposes that
summative and formative assessment can complement each other and lead to increased teacher
effectiveness.
Current Methods of Teacher Evaluation
It is widely agreed that teacher evaluations systems are broken and perceived as having
little utility towards improving instructional quality (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Papay, 2012).
There are four common problems found in current teacher evaluations systems: (a) all teachers
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 18

are given good ratings; (b) there is little meaningful feedback; (c) professional learning
opportunities are not based on teacher needs; and (d) a lack of time leads to lack of interest from
school leaders (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Tuytens & Devos, 2014).
Weisberg et al. (2009) describe a phenomenon in American schools they coin as the
“widget effect.” Essentially, when it comes to teacher evaluations, teachers are often seen as
interchangeable parts, differing little in instructional capacity or performance (Weisberg et al.,
2009). This effect results in most teachers being rated “good” or “great” on evaluations with
excellence going unacknowledged, insufficient professional learning opportunities provided, and
no repercussions for poor performance (Papay, 2012; Tuytens & Devos, 2014; Weisberg et al.,
2009). The status quo of evaluations is brief and cursory visits by administrators with an
underlying purpose of compliance, not the improvement of practice (Accomplished California
Teachers (ACT), 2010; Papay, 2012). Current methods of teacher evaluation are therefore often
an ineffective method for improving teacher practice and instruction (Weisberg et al., 2009).
Even as reform efforts aim at improving teacher evaluation Hallinger et al. (2014) contend that
there is little evidence that even new systems of teacher evaluation influence building capacity in
teachers or improving student outcomes.
As a result of this cursory system of teacher evaluation, the utility of current evaluations
is perceived as low by many teachers in part because little meaningful feedback is given to help
improve practice (ACT, 2010; Tuytens & Devos, 2014). Professional learning opportunities are
not determined based on identified needs in the evaluation process or tailored to the needs of
individual teachers (ACT, 2010; Tuytens & Devos, 2014). A lack of professional learning tied to
evaluation results may in part be attributed to the fact that the burden of evaluations often lies
directly on a single site administrator who is often overwhelmed with an exhaustive list of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 19

managerial and instructional tasks (Tuytens & Devos, 2014). This leads to low levels of buy-in
from leaders because of the lack of time they have to devote to evaluations (Tuytens & Devos,
2014). The lack of buy-in is compounded by questions of bias, reliability, and validity in
currently used methods (Papay, 2012). There are three common models of teacher evaluation
implemented in varying ways: (a) value-added model; (b) standards-based model; and (c) multi-
measure method.
Value-added model (VAM). The value-added model (VAM) was first introduced in
1997 by William Sanders, a statistician at the University of Tennessee (Ravitch, 2010). The
objective of the method was to “calculate the extent to which” teachers contributed to the
academic growth of students (Ravitch, 2010, p. 179). The value-added algorithm predicts student
performance on assessments based on past performance, background characteristics, and
characteristics of themselves and their peers (Papay, 2012). A comparison is then done between
actual performance and predicted performance to calculate the value-added score, the possible
effect of the teacher (Papay, 2012). Proponents of the value-added model postulate that measures
of teacher effects are important because they help to answer three questions: “(a) Do teachers
have differential effects on student outcomes?; (b) How effective is an individual teacher at
producing growth in student achievement?; and (c) Which teachers are most or least effective?”
(McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003, p.7). Validity of value-added models seems
reasonable because they are based on objective test scores (Papay, 2012). Value-added estimates
are made using statistical models which ostensibly eliminates rater scoring errors (Cohen &
Goldhaber, 2016). Opponents push back on the validity of the use of value-added models in
teacher evaluations and point to several flaws affecting bias, reliability, and the utility of value-
added scores to improve practice.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 20

Critics of value-added measures question the extent to which VAM can account for
individual student growth if students are not randomly assigned to classrooms (Papay, 2012).
Additionally, VAM models do not take into account possible outside sources of academic growth
that cannot be credited to the classroom teacher (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016; Papay, 2012;
Rothstein, 2010). For example, it is reasonable that a science teacher might contribute to
academic growth in math or that the support of an outside tutor may contribute growth (Cohen &
Goldhaber, 2016; Papay, 2012; Rothstein, 2010). Value-added measures may hold teachers
accountable and or give them credit for gains over which they have minimal influence (Cohen &
Goldhaber, 2016; Papay, 2012; Rothstein, 2010). Several authors note the lack of clarity in how
VAM estimates can account for differences in teacher and student backgrounds, prior academic
achievement, or adjust to account for how students are assigned to classrooms or even verify that
data systems are correctly attaching students to teachers (Ballou & Springer, 2015; McCaffrey et
al., 2003; Rothstein, 2010).
In addition to concerns related to bias in VAM, critics point to questions of reliability.
Value-added measures are only as good as the scores they are based on, if tests are not reliable
then estimates are not valid (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016; Papay, 2012; Ravitch, 2010). Scores
only capture a narrow scope of learning measured by the standardized tests (Cohen & Goldhaber,
2016; Papay, 2012; Ravitch, 2010;). Student learning and student tests scores are not
synonymous, a rise in tests scores may not truly indicate increased student learning, but rather a
narrowing of curriculum or even cheating by stakeholders (Papay, 2012; Ravitch, 2010).
Standardized tests often fail to measure complex problem-solving skills or deeper conceptual
understanding (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016; Popham, 2003). VAM places emphasis on test data
rather than pedagogy. It is underpinned by the idea that the effectiveness of a teacher can be
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 21

measured without ever watching them teach or understanding the experiences of his/her students.
Standardized test scores do not give teachers or administrators specific information on ways to
improve practice or shed light on what teaching practices contribute to students’ achievement,
giving little utility to the scores in inform professional learning or collaboration (Goldring et al.,
2015; Harris, 2009; Papay, 2012; Popham, 2003). Exclusive use of VAM as a measure of teacher
effectiveness may also contribute to competition over collaboration between teachers (Cohen &
Goldhaber, 2016). Furthermore, test scores are not available for all teachers because not all
subject areas are tested (Ravitch, 2010). These questions of the validity of VAM as a stand-alone
measure of teacher effectiveness resulted in VAM being incorporated into multi-measure
systems rather than being used on its own.
Standards-based model. Standards-based models of teacher evaluation are based on a
set of professional teaching standards and a rubric detailing requirements for each standard
(ACT, 2010; Papay, 2012). Standards and rubrics are constructed by individual districts or states
(ACT, 2010; Papay, 2012).Two popular models used for standards-based teacher evaluation are
the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Effective Teaching and the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (Papay, 2012). Danielson and McGreal (2000) argue that an
effective model must contain clear teaching standards and thorough data collection gathered by
highly-trained evaluators to be able to assess teaching. Rubrics within standards-based systems
should clearly articulate what successfully meeting standards entails (Papay, 2012). Standards-
based models of evaluation primarily require observation data to estimate teacher effectiveness.
Principals most widely use observations and 95-99% of teachers experience observations by a
principal as part of their evaluation (Papay, 2012).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 22

A standards-based model of evaluation intends to offer several positives. Standards-based
model includes that multiple unannounced classroom observations by expert evaluators over the
course of a school year offer a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’ pedagogy and
practice (ACT, 2010; Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016; Papay, 2012). Teachers evaluated in a
standards-based system are rated across a variety of standards, therefore it is proposed that final
ratings are based on clear evidence rather than assumptions made by administrators about teacher
performance (Papay, 2012). Furthermore, it is postulated that standards-based evaluations
connect practice with district expectations of teacher performance and can provide more concrete
feedback on the pedagogical strengths and challenges of teachers (Papay, 2012).
While standards-based rubrics and models are put forth as unbiased they may, in fact, be
subject to bias in the form of “underlying prejudices” evaluators hold toward teachers if
evaluators are not highly trained and qualified to conduct observations (Papay, 2012). Critics
also point to the challenge that standards-based methods have in being able to distinguish
between good teaching practice (pedagogy) and successful teaching practice (getting results)
(Papay, 2012). The variance in the implementation of observations is extensive in terms of focus,
duration, and frequency (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016). Observations average forty-five minutes
and occur on average 3.4 times a year for untenured teachers and 2.3 times a year for tenured
teachers (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016). Principals report favoring observation data over using
student achievement data as a gauge for teacher performance (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016).
Critics of the sole use of observations point to low level of reliability due to the low number of
observations conducted each year in addition to questions about the fidelity of implementation
amongst raters (Papay, 2012). Inter-rater reliability is low due to considerable inconsistency in
how raters are trained to conduct observations (Papay, 2012).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 23

Multiple measure systems. Any single measure of a teacher’s performance is limited by
its ability to thoroughly assess all aspects of teacher performance given the multifaceted nature
of teaching (Youngs & Grissom, 2016). In recent years, specifically since Race to the Top began,
many states and school districts have introduced teacher evaluation systems that combine
multiple measures of teacher performance including value-added models, student surveys,
classroom observation rubrics, and teacher portfolios (Youngs & Grissom, 2016). Instruments
used for observations, student surveys, and teacher portfolios can support instructional practices
if based on empirical evidence and focused on identifying specific areas for instructional
improvement (Youngs & Grissom, 2016). Additionally, portfolios help teachers focus on specific
areas of growth in planning, instruction, and assessment (Youngs & Grissom, 2016). Data from
student surveys can give feedback on classroom and school climate (Youngs & Grissom, 2016).
Multi-measure systems offer the opportunity to triangulate data, create a more complete
depiction of teacher performance, and provide feedback on specific aspects of teaching (Papay,
2012, Youngs & Grissom, 2016).
Within multi-measure teacher evaluation systems used for summative evaluation
different components of the evaluation are given different weights. Youngs and Grissom (2016)
suggest that higher weights be given to measures with higher levels of reliability and validity and
less weight given to measures with lower levels of reliability and validity. Papay (2012) notes
that when implementing the use of an evaluation instrument it is important to ask two questions:
(a) can it drive instructional change? and (b) can it be used to drive professional development
and improve practice? Proper weighting to these instruments within a multi-measure system can
help inform not only personnel decisions, but also resource allocation and a focus for
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 24

professional learning for individual teachers and schools (Youngs & Grissom, 2016). In this way,
multi-measure systems can be used for both summative and formative purposes.
The Federal G ove r n m e n t’s Role in Education Reform
Schools are affected by the structures of the broader society that govern their operation
(Fullan, 2007).In the United States the legal and financial burden of education falls primarily on
state and local entities; the U.S. Constitution does not mention education as a right (Goldstein,
2014; New York State Department of Education, 2009). Although the burden of education lands
on state and local government structures, school systems are still often subject to federal
bureaucratic levers that influence the content and pacing of instruction and the definition of a
quality teacher (Mehta, 2013). Consequently, there persists a tension between federal, state, and
local control over schooling. Federal policy tied to funding often acts as a catalyst for state
policymaking, with districts and local school left to enact mandated policy and implement
programs aimed at reform. The highly decentralized nature of the American education system
leads to competing layers of regulations and requirements that have led to an overall confusion in
how to approach issues of reform (Mehta, 2013). Teachers may look at factors external to the
school as influencing student performance and resent reform that they see as presuming their
current efforts are not working (Datnow, 2000).
Federal Policy
The federal government’s attempts at leveraging change in education through federal
legislation started on the cusp of the broader civil rights movement. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 to amend “impact aid” laws of the 1950s
(NYSDE, 2009). Such laws focused on structural provisions for equal opportunity in education,
such as buildings, but did not focus on instruction. Provisions of ESEA included provisions of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 25

money for textbooks, teachers, technology, library resources, education research, language
acquisition programs, and expansion of state departments of education (NYSDE, 2009). Federal
efforts to influence and regulate education policy, including evaluation policy, in the United
States vacillate between top-down and bottom-up philosophies. The reform efforts of the early
1970s and 1980s took a top-down approach and focused on inputs (longer days, better teachers,
graduation requirements) and improving fundamental skills competency (Smith & O’Day, 1991).
Groups from outside of schools often initiated these top-down efforts and state governments
enforced changes (Smith & O’Day, 1991). The next reform wave in the middle to late 1980s
took a bottom-up approach and focused on restructuring schools, with individual schools become
the “unit of change” (Smith & O’Day, 1991, p. 234). The idea that if school personnel were held
accountable for outcomes that they would seek out the training and methods best suited for their
contexts, leading to improved instruction and student achievement, underpinned these efforts
(Smith & O’Day, 1991).
The Clinton Administration promoted standards-based reform through the 1994 passage
of Goals 2000: Educate America Act which outlined a vision and goals for America’s schools by
the year 2000 (Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2008). The legislation envisioned a “…coherent,
nationwide, systemic education reform,” and that focused on rigorous content standards and
continuing professional learning for teachers, with little focus on measuring teacher effectiveness
(H.R. 1804, 1994, p. 4). The federal government provided funding for the development of
performance and content standards with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in 1994, renamed the Improving America’s Schools Act (Hamilton et al.,
2008).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 26

No child left behind. The 2002 reauthorization of ESEA, under the George W. Bush
administration, was coined No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and represented one of the most
significant expansions of the federal government into education (Ravitch, 2010). NCLB focused
on improving student achievement through content standards, assessments, and specific
accountability requirements (NYSDE, 2009). States who refused to comply with the
requirements of NCLB faced the possible withholding of millions of dollars of federal money
aimed at supporting education for some of the most vulnerable student populations (Ravitch,
2010). Critics of the legislation argued that the legislation’s focus on math and reading scores
made success synonymous with narrow test score data and neglected untested subject areas
(Ravitch, 2010). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was demonstrated with growth in proficiency
scores for reading, math, and science and no failing sub-groups (English language learners,
special education, free-reduced lunch) of students (NYSDOE, 2009). Teacher quality under
NCLB was also defined in narrow terms as states and districts were required to provide proof
that a “highly-qualified” teacher staffed each classroom. The legislation required that teachers
prove they were “highly-qualified” by having a bachelor’s degree with full state licensing and
proof of proficiency in their subject area (Hamilton et al., 2007). States determined how teachers
showed subject matter proficiency, often through testing or proof of coursework in the subject
area (Hamilton et al., 2007). States were also given leeway in providing current teachers multiple
ways in which to prove that they were highly-qualified, a process called High, Objective,
Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), and competent within their subject areas
(Hamilton et al., 2007). NCLB provided funding to improve teacher certification, the hiring and
retention of highly-qualified teachers, and continued professional learning for all teachers
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 27

(Hamilton et al., 2007). In this era, teacher quality was synonymous with subject matter
competency and teacher effectiveness was equated with high test scores.
Race to the top fund. As part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment pushed
forth by the Obama administration the Race to the Top Fund was a $4.35 billion competitive
grant program states competed for to secure funding to revamp their education systems (NYSDE,
2009; Popham, 2013). Applications were awarded points across six categories,
• State Success Factors (125 points)
• Standards and Assessments (70 points)
• Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 points)
• Great Teachers and Leaders (138 points)
• Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 points)
• General Selection Criteria (55 points)
Each category included components with specific point allocations (NYSDE, 2009; Popham,
2013). The following five components made up the selection criteria for Great Teachers and
Leaders.
• Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
• Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
• Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
• Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
• Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
A specific lever by which the USDOE wanted to ensure states were committed to improving
both teacher and principal effectiveness was through the development of comprehensive
evaluation systems (USDOE, 2009). The USDOE specified that these evaluation systems must:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 28

(a) measure individual student growth; (b) include multiple rating categories that incorporate
student growth data; (c) provide annual evaluations with feedback; (d) use evaluation results to
determine professional learning, compensation, promotion, retention, tenure, and certification
(USDOE, 2009). The definition of teacher effectiveness was not dissimilar from NCLB, teacher
effectiveness was primarily defined in terms of student achievement data, although now based
mainly on value-added growth models. The grant guidelines encouraged applicants to use
multiple measures of teacher effectiveness. Within this program, an effective teacher was defined
as, “…a teacher whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an
academic year) of student growth…” (USDOE, 2009, p. 12). Additionally, a teacher would be
considered highly effective is his/her “…students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade
levels in an academic year) of student growth…” (USDOE, 2009, p. 12). Under these definitions,
student achievement is equated with student performance on state exams and growth is defined
as changed in achievement scores across a minimum of two points in time (USDOE, 2009). The
Race to the Top era still equated teacher effectiveness with student achievement data.
Policy Implementation
The systemic barriers that prevented these reform efforts from taking root broadly in the
United States are a result of the multi-layered, disjointed, decentralized system in which public
schools exist. The political pressures from federal, state, and local entities to produce
“measurable” or “memorable” outcomes in a short period of time often results in a “project
mentality” in which quick fixes and programs are implemented with little focus on the long-term
(Smith and O’Day, 1991, p. 237). Reforms produce pockets of success, but often at sites where
leaders, teachers, and staff would have restructured on their own without outside pressure (Smith
& O’Day, 1991).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 29

The brokenness of the American school system is attributed to complex education policy
system that incorporates the often disjointed demands of local, state, and federal layers (Smith &
O’Day, 1991). These various layers have historically exhibited little “purposeful coordination” to
support their mandates (Smith & O’Day, 1991). These struggles still apply to the American
school system today, 25 years later. Mehta (2013) notes the downward spiral of the American
education system through the accountability era of legislation such as No Child Left Behind.
Underprofessionalization in teaching and weak performance on exams leads to higher levels of
regulation, external accountability, and distrust between teachers and administrators (Mehta,
2013). Patterns of regulation and distrust persist from the early iterations of federal efforts to
reform education and improve student outcomes as legislators continue to implement new
policies and programs (Mehta, 2013). Mandated programs and policies often come from small
success at limited pilot sites, but rarely succeed when scaled-up because little attention is paid to
the expertise, buy-in, or context at subsequent sites (Mehta, 2013). Mehta (2013) calls this the
backward organization of the American education system. Bureaucratic levels such as stricter
requirements and regulations are routinely used to improve outcomes of field requiring high
levels of specialization and skill, but little support is given to build human capital which might
support improved outcomes (Mehta, 2013).
Teacher Perceptions of Education Reform Policy
Datnow and Park (2009) assert that in policy implementation teachers are both the
“objects of reform” and “agents of change” (p. 351). Teachers bear the burden of carrying out
mandates over which they had little influence, while also wielding great power in shaping policy
outcomes (Datnow & Park, 2009). Teacher perceptions and professional behavior are linked to
personal systems of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Tuytens & Devos, 2009; van den Berg,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 30

Vandenberghe, & Sleegers, 1999). The dual role played by teachers as “objects of reform” and
“agents of change” makes their perspectives especially interesting and important to consider
when seeking to understand policy implementation and educational change (Datnow & Park,
2009). Teachers are often ultimately responsible for policy implementation, therefore attention to
the perceptions of teachers is critical to the successful implementation and sustainability of new
policy (Kim & Youngs, 2016; Van der Vegt, Smyth, & Vandenberghe, 2001). Research shows
the significance of teacher perceptions in successful policy implementation on inclusion policy
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Odongo & Davidson, 2016), adoption of Comprehensive School
Reform models (Bodilly, 1998; Datnow, 2000; Le Floch et al., 2006), curriculum adoption
(Little, 1982), and teacher evaluation (Kim & Youngs, 2016). Datnow (2000) notes that teachers
are rarely asked “whether or why” reform should take place even though they are responsible for
implementation (p. 367). Elmore (2006) asserts that accountability systems only work, “…to the
degree that they engage the knowledge, skills, and commitment of people who work in schools,”
(p. 39). It is therefore essential to understand factors that influence teacher perceptions of
change.
Educational Change Framework
Fullan (2007) asserts that implementation of educational change is influenced by nine
factors arranged into three categories: (a) characteristics of the change or innovation; (b) local
characteristics; and (c) external factors. The following section explores Fullan’s framework and
the factors that influence teacher perceptions of change.
Four characteristics of change and innovation. The four characteristics of change that
affect implementation are: (a) need; (b) clarity; (c) complexity; and (d) practicality/quality
(Fullan, 2007). Need focuses on the understanding that teachers hold about the need for the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 31

policy in their local context (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Clarity relates to a basic
understanding of the elements and goals of the policy (Fullan, 2007). Complexity looks at the
extent to which individuals need to change (knowledge, skills, time, effort) in order to implement
the policy (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Finally, practicality/quality considers the
feasibility of policy implementation in terms of practical concerns such as availability of
materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007). The following figure shows how these
characteristics of change might be related to teacher perceptions of education policy.
Figure 2.1
Characteristics of Change (Fullan, 2007) and Teacher Perceptions

Need. Teacher perceptions of new policy change influences whether teachers believe
there is a need for the change (Fullan, 2007). This belief is influenced by the relative importance
Teacher
Perceptions
of
Education
Policy
Need
Is this policy
needed in my
local context?
Clarity
Are the elements of
the policy clear?
Do I understand the
goals of the policy?
Complexity
How much
effort is and
change is
required of
me to adopt
this policy?
Practicality/Quality
Do I have adequate
support (materials,
training, time, etc.) to
properly implement
this policy?
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 32

of the need being addressed in light of the many needs impacting schools (Fullan, 2007). Weiner
(2009) notes that organizational commitment to change can largely hinge on members of the
organization valuing the change and viewing the change as needed and worthwhile. The higher
value organizational members place on the change is connected to their commitment to the
implementation of new policy or innovation (Weiner, 2009). Successful implementation of new
policy or innovation in schools is strongly connected to teacher belief that change is needed and
that the change is appropriate for their school (Fullan, 2001; Le Floch et al., 2006).
Studies evaluating the adoption process of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) models
offer insight into how teacher buy-in and perception of need are often measured. CSR models
grew in popularity during the mid-1990s as a response to growing public discontent with public
school performance (Datnow, 2000). Models within the CSR movement were externally created
programs, rather than internally developed programs by local schools or districts (Datnow,
2000). Voting is often used as a proxy for teacher buy-in by CSR model developers, who believe
that teacher choice in reform design is critical to successful implementation (Berends, Kirby,
Naftel, & McKelvey, 2001; Bodilly, 1998; Datnow, 2000; Le Floch et al., 2006). Schools
adopting one model, the New American Schools (NAS) model, required that 75-80 percent of
teachers vote in favor of the design before adoption (Berends et al., 2001). Teachers often
measure the need for reform according to the hierarchical ranking of overall school needs, to stay
in the favor of administrators and colleagues, or to obtain resources offered with the adoption
(Datnow 2000; Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). While voting is often used to measure
teacher support for reform, it does not always give an accurate picture of teacher perceptions of
the change.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 33

In an evaluation of the reform adoption processes within 22 schools adopting CSR
models Datnow (2000) concluded that although teachers participated in a vote, the vote was
often perfunctory and influenced more by the model being mandated by district administration
than inquiry into practice and investigation into what models might best fit the needs of the
school. In an evaluation of 50 schools in 7 districts that adopted the New American Schools CSR
model, Bodilly (1998) found that within districts where teachers felt intense pressure from the
administration to vote in favor of specific models there were lower levels of implementation.
Intense pressure occurred when districts offered only one CSR model to schools and sometimes
required multiple votes until a majority of teachers voted in favor of the reform (Bodilly, 1998).
Datnow (2000) postulates that teacher involvement in critical inquiry, data-driven decision-
making at the school level is critical for the long-term success of school reform policy.
Successful implementation of reform is greatly influenced by the reform adoption process and
teacher buy-in that the reform is needed and an appropriate fit for their school (Bodilly, 1998;
Datnow, 2000). Likewise, in a study of the CSR adoption process Le Floch et al. (2006) found
no connection between voting for a particular model and success in the implementation process.
Clarity. Clarity in the educational change process also influences teacher perceptions of
change. Fullan (2007) asserts that clarity of goals, purpose, and methods of implementation are
essential for successful implementation. A lack of clarity in the change process can cause
frustration and anxiety on the part of teachers (Fullan, 2007). Conversely, teachers may
experience “false clarity” in which the change is oversimplified and implementation is
superficial (Fullan, 2007). Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer (2002) suggest that implementation of
change does not simply involve training on new ideas, but rather “restructuring a complex of
existing schema,” (p. 396). The authors suggest, in agreement with Fullan’s (2007) idea of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 34

“false clarity,” that if schemas are not restructured that new policy is in danger of being seen as
an insignificant variation of current policy, rather than understanding the critical differences
(Spillane et al., 2002). Messaging and introduction of a new policy is a critical stage in the
implementation process where teachers begin to make sense of policy in light of their own
context and experience, and frequently the point at which they decide whether or not to support
change.
In a study of six schools in Memphis, Datnow (2000) notes that teachers in four of the six
schools were pressured by the district, specifically the superintendent, or site administration to
adopt particular reform models with little knowledge about the goals or purposes of the program.
The pressure led to low levels of teacher buy-in, superficial implementation, and eventual
rejection of CSR reform models (Datnow, 2000). Datnow (2000) suggests that increased
information given to teachers about reforms would help increase reform success, but
acknowledges that teachers view any information through the lens of their own ideology and
experience and therefore the provision of information may not change teachers’ feelings about
reform.
The influence of clarity on teacher perceptions is also evident in the literature about the
adoption of academic content standards and assessment. Kaufman et al. (2017) used survey data
from the American Teacher Panel to understand perceptions American teachers hold about
academic content standards and assessments in their states. Their sample consisted of a randomly
selected, nationally representative group of 1,321 K-12 teachers. Kaufman et al. (2017) found
that in states that had not adopted the Common Core standards, 30 to 40 percent of teachers
thought their states had adopted the Common Core. The authors suggested that the confusion
may have been a result of states renaming their standards or adopting standards that were similar
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 35

to the Common Core. Kaufman et al. (2017) also found that teachers who thought their state had
adopted the Common Core were less supportive of the statewide assessments used to gauge
student progress in mastery of the standards. The authors suggested that public opposition to the
Common Core as well as a lack of familiarity with the exams, such as PARCC and SBAC, might
explain teacher perceptions.
The connections between training and teacher perceptions have been demonstrated
particularly in the literature about inclusion policy. It is postulated that training on the
philosophy and methods of policy implementation improve clarity. In a review of literature
looking at teachers’ perceptions of inclusion policy for special education students, Avramidis
and Norwich (2002) found that both in-service and pre-service training for teachers about
inclusion policy and practice resulted in more positive perceptions of inclusion. Avramidis and
Kalyva (2007) surveyed 155 primary teachers in Northern Greece about their perceptions of
inclusion and found that teachers with long-term training in inclusive education demonstrated
positive perceptions of the philosophy and implementation of inclusion policy. Rakap and
Kaczmarek (2010) findings were similar in their study of teachers’ perceptions of inclusion
policy in Turkey. In their survey of 194 general education teachers, they found that teachers with
in-service education and special education certificates and those who received pre-service special
education courses demonstrated more positive perceptions towards inclusion (Rakap &
Kaczmarek, 2010). In a study of the perceptions of Kenyan teachers towards inclusion policy
Odongo and Davidson (2016) found that teachers demonstrated a clear understanding of the
social benefits of inclusion in their classrooms and overall demonstrated a positive attitude
towards inclusion. Additionally, teachers actively expressed an interest in further training to
support special education students in their classrooms (Odongo & Davidson, 2016). The
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 36

provision of training and sharing of information, the improvement of clarity, certainly increases
positive perceptions of change.
Complexity. Complexity encompasses the difficulty and magnitude of change required by
an individual to implement change (Fullan, 2007). Complexity can be measured in terms of
change in ideological mindset, transformation in teaching strategies, attainment of new
knowledge and skills, and the use of new materials (Fullan, 2007).
Research on inclusion policy in special education gives insight into the influence of
policy complexity on implementation. In their study of perceptions of Kenyan teachers towards
inclusion policy, Odongo and Davidson (2016) noted that even though teachers supported the
philosophical underpinnings of inclusion, they shared a concern about their knowledge of
instructional methods to best support all students. The lack of understanding of instructional
methods for an inclusive classroom might hinder instruction (Odongo & Davidson, 2016). In a
study of Australian teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, Ward, Center, and Bochner (1994)
similarly found that teachers supported the inclusion of special education students, but only
students with seemingly “mild difficulties” because those students would not require the
development of different instructional or managerial skills for teachers. Scruggs and Mastropieri
(1996) synthesized teacher survey information from 28 reports with 10,560 respondents in the
United States, Australia, and Canada from the years 1958-1995 to understand the perceptions of
general education teachers about teaching students with disabilities. The researchers found that
teacher support of inclusion depended on the severity of the disability and the amount of change
in teacher responsibility (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). The researchers noted that the finding
was consisted across the years in which the survey was given, noting that teachers were
consistently more concerned with their ability to meet the needs of students with disabilities than
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 37

the philosophical underpinnings of inclusion policy (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Avramidis
and Norwich (2002) assert that, particularly in the United States, resistance to inclusion is
explained by the lack of change in systemic structures within schools, concern for teachers’
instructional capability, or assurance of availability of resources.
Practicality and quality. The fourth characteristic of change outlined by Fullan (2007) is
practicality and quality. In their seminal article about teacher implementation of curriculum
innovations, Doyle and Ponder (1977) created a construct of practicality called the Ethic of
Practicality and asserted that changes perceived as more practical are more likely to be
incorporated into practice. The purpose of the construct was to understand why teachers do or do
not adopt curriculum innovations (Doyle & Ponder, 2017; Reid, 2014). Doyle and Ponder (1977)
asserted that practicality is defined by three main components; instrumentality, congruence, and
cost. Instrumentality refers to the clear communication of how principles of a policy can be
converted into classroom practice (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). Congruence refers to the alignment
of policy with the local contexts in which teachers as well as the orientation of the policy with a
teacher’s self-image and style of teaching (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). Finally, cost refers to the
relationship between the time and energy spent on investing in the change and the potential
return on that investment (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). A teacher’s evaluation of these components
influence her/his decision about the adoption of a new policy or reform (Doyle & Ponder, 1977).
Quality refers to supports put in place to ensure thorough and complete implementation.
The primacy of reform adoption over quality reform implementation is a barrier to change Fullan
(2007) asserts that if the adoption of reform takes primacy over the quality of implementation
that follow-up support and time to make changes is often lacking. In large scale school reform
initiatives, the timeline between adoption and implementation is often too compacted for quality
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 38

implementation to take place (Datnow, 2000; Fullan, 2007). The lack of time to implement
quality change certainly influences perceptions of the change and can often result in superficial
implementation (Fullan, 2007). Adequate time to make decisions about and implement reform
influence the quality of implementation and increase the possibility of building support amongst
teachers (Datnow, 2000).
Studies investigating the implementation of academic content standards and curriculum
implementation help illustrate the influence of practicality on implementation. In a study of
teachers’ perceptions of technology-rich literacy curriculum targeting emergent readers in Dutch
kindergarten classrooms, Cviko, McKenney, and Voogt (2012) found that practicality influence
how the curriculum was implemented in classrooms. The study used semi-structured interviews
and observations with four Dutch kindergarten teachers to better understand teacher perceptions
of the implementation process. Teachers who demonstrated practicality related concerns about
student technology skills and the amount of effort needed to integrate technology showed lower
levels of technology integration in their classrooms (Cviko et al., 2012). In their study of the
perceptions American teachers’ hold about academic content standards and assessments in their
states, Kaufman et al. (2017) found that teachers who demonstrated concern over the
manageability of the number of topics covered in the Common Core Standards were less
supportive of Common Core implementation. Doyle and Ponder (1977) noted that when
considering the implementation of innovation teachers often focus on the concrete and
procedural, the ways in which policy might influence their daily practice, over the abstract and
general. Reid (2014) used Doyle and Ponder’s (1977) Ethic of Practicality to analyze the why
three, fourth-grade teachers voluntarily collaborated over four years to plan curriculum The
study found the three elements of the Ethic of Practicality influenced the teachers’ commitment
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 39

to planning together (Reid, 2014). The teachers worked together to translate the curriculum into
daily practice (instrumentality) in ways that aligned with their shared teaching philosophy
(congruence) and resulted in high levels of learning amongst their students (cost), therefore they
were committed to collaboration because of its practicality (Doyle & Ponder, 1977; Reid, 2014).
Practicality is critical to teacher perceptions of change because it is how teachers view change
influencing their day to day practice.
Studies about inclusion policy indicate the influence of quality and practicality on teacher
perceptions of inclusion policy. Teachers perception of policy is also influenced by the practical
concerns of availability of both staff support and materials to implement policy. In their review
of literature about inclusion policy, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found that the readiness of
support services consistently connected with positive teacher perceptions of inclusion across
studies. Implementation support in their study included teacher materials and special support
personnel in their classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996)
reviewed teacher surveys about attitudes towards inclusion/mainstream policy between the years
1958 and 1995. Their review included 28 reports and over 10,000 respondents from the United
States, Australia, and Canada. The study found that teachers tended to look at
mainstream/inclusion policy through the lens of practicality rather than social prejudice (Scruggs
& Mastropieri, 1996). Teachers indicated concern the lack of additional time that was needed to
plan for students with special needs in mainstream classrooms and this connected to less
favorable perceptions of mainstream/inclusion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
Local Context and Characteristics
Even as the tension between federal, state, and local control over education persists,
Smith and O’Day (1991) assert that the power to affect change in schools rests with the authority
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 40

of the states for creating a strong and coherent instructional guidance system. Additionally, states
are best suited to develop a high-quality instructional framework with clear student expectations
and provide support to local districts to effectively implement curriculum and instruction (Smith
& O’Day, 1991). The authors also highlight the responsibility states should take to influence the
preparation of teachers so they are ready to effectively provide instruction within the state
framework to guide student achievement (Smith & O’Day, 1991). States are the critical player in
school reform with the constitutional responsibility for education and influence over curriculum
and instruction, teaching training and licensure, and accountability (Smith & O’Day, 1991).
States are best suited to take the lead in improving education systems and providing a coherent
direction and vision for education reform. The Race to the Top grant program followed this
model by loosely providing guidelines for reform, but allowing states to choose strategies that
would best suit their context and serve their stakeholders. The guidelines encouraged applicants
to adopt multi-measure teacher evaluation systems that, amongst other requirements, connected
evaluations to professional learning opportunities. As new policy is enacted the local social
conditions can also influence change in school systems (Fullan, 2007). Local characteristics that
can affect change include the school districts, school boards, the community, principals, and
teachers (Fullan, 2007). Datnow (2000) found that reforms were more secure in schools where
districts did not mandate the adoption of specific programs, but instead offered support. Stability
in both district and school site leadership also leads to more stability in reform implementation
(Datnow, 2000).
The district. School district focus on policy development and support for implementation
is critical if a policy is meant to improve the instruction of individual teachers (Fullan, 2007). A
school district’s record of managing or mismanaging change can influence teacher’s willingness
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 41

to implement new policies and programs (Fullan, 2007). A districts’ involvement in capacity
building amongst school staff is critical for change to take root (Fullan, 2007). Elmore (2006)
asserts that leadership in districts is responsible for providing focus, building capacity amongst
school staff, increasing coherence, and developing accountability within the organization.
District leadership influences the success or failure of reform policy.
Comprehensive school reform model adoption. Districts influence both the adoption and
implementation of reform measures. Datnow (2000) looked at case study data from 22 schools
spanning four years with the objective of examining how and why schools make reform adoption
decisions and how those decisions influence implementation and sustainability. The study looked
specifically at the adoption process surrounding comprehensive school reform models. Districts
in the study influenced reform decisions by offering incentives, such as additional funding, if
schools adopted preferred reform measures or disincentives, such as forcing schools to develop
their own measures with no additional time or funding (Datnow, 2000). Datnow (2000) points to
the role of power and politics in school reform adoption noting, “Free, fully informed choice
about reform adoption seldom existed for teachers” (p. 367). Schools that reached stability in
reform implementation existed when the district did not mandate reform adoption, but offered
support for implementation (Datnow, 2000). The study also noted the influence of messaging on
building teacher support for reform efforts. Teachers were less likely to support reform measures
initiated by the district, rather than site leadership, due to the perception that the district did not
truly understand the local contexts in which teachers operate (Datnow, 2000). The author
suggests that to improve buy-in to change districts need to understand the difference between
mandating reform and supporting reform because mandates are often viewed as top-down
directives and can become highly politicized (Datnow, 2000). Second, increasing the time and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 42

information schools have to make decisions about reform adoption increases the likelihood of
support amongst teachers (Datnow, 2000). Finally, districts should increase teacher involvement
in the reform adoption process through data evaluation and critical inquiry led by school site
leaders (Datnow, 2000). The traditional hierarchical structure of schools and districts offer many
barriers to successful reform adoption and implementation if district leaders do not acknowledge
the power structures that influence decision-making and work to overcome those structures.
Bodilly (1998) assessed the first two years of the scale-up phase of the comprehensive
school reform (CSR) model called New American Schools (NAS). The study sought to
understand school implementation of the NAS model and why some schools made more progress
than other schools (Bodilly, 1998). The findings implicated several district policies that
supported or hindered implementation efforts. First, prioritization of the initiative amongst
district leadership through both action and words was key in staff buy-in (Bodilly, 1998).
Second, district stability was critical in staff buy-in. Stability was measured by a lack of “crisis”
situation such as budget challenges, political disputes, legal action against the district, or union-
district disagreements. A lack of crisis situations in the district made staff feel like the full focus
of the district remained on implementation (Bodilly, 1998). Other factors influencing
perceptions of district support included historical levels of trust and cooperation between the
district and teachers’ union, school autonomy, sufficient provision of resources to support
implementation, and congruence between the NAS model and state and local assessments
(Bodilly, 1998). A positive perception of district support (as evidenced through stable,
communicative leadership, few crises, a strong relationship of trust and collaboration between
the district and school, school autonomy, and provision of resources) resulted in higher levels of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 43

implementation (Bodilly, 1998). District support is critical in the successful implementation of
new policy or innovation.
Teacher evaluation policy. Donaldson and Papay (2012) studied the implementation of a
multi-measure teacher evaluation system implemented in a medium-sized urban school district to
better understand factors that aided or hindered the evaluation system’s success. The researchers
interviewed 95 stakeholders in the district; 10 principals, 10 assistant principals, 72 teachers, and
three district leaders. The study found that collaboration between the school district and the
teachers’ union in the development of the teacher evaluation system was critical to buy-in and
positive perceptions of the system (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). The evaluation system focused
on using data to inform instructional coaching rather than punishing teachers (Donaldson &
Papay, 2012). Several elements were incorporated into the evaluation to foster trust, teamwork,
and buy-in. First, observations became more frequent ensuring that administrators were regularly
gathering data to support instructional coaching (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). Furthermore,
evaluations for district and site administrators, which included teacher feedback, were
implemented simultaneously to build trust (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). Next, clear and specific
evaluation rubrics explicitly linked evaluation measures with concrete practices in the classroom
(Donaldson & Papay, 2012). An external validator arbitrated if teacher evaluation scores were
extremely high or low to build trust in the system as an objective measure of teacher
performance (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). These elements supported successful implementation
and positive perceptions of teacher evaluation in the district. The district faced two main
challenges in implementation. First, training of principals was a challenge, so a director of
teacher evaluation was appointed to improve standardization of the evaluation process, ensure
regular trainings, improve communication, and provide support for principals (Donaldson &
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 44

Papay, 2012). Data management was the second challenge, so the district implemented an online
data management system for teacher evaluations (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). The district’s
actions to support teacher participation in the creation and implementation of the evaluation
system fostered trust and positive perceptions of the new evaluation system.
Bradshaw (2002) reviewed teacher evaluation practices in North Carolina over a fourteen
year period to better understand the role of the state in evaluation practices. In Hawaii, the
location of this study, the state department of education is synonymous with the district. The
North Carolina Teacher Performance Appraisal System (NCTPAS) was initially introduced in
1983 and expanded to all districts by 1985 (Bradshaw, 2002). The study surveyed over four
thousand teachers and one hundred seventy-seven administrators in twenty-seven school districts
to better understand how the state’s involvement in teacher evaluation impeded and supported
implementation. The involvement of the state positively influenced a clarification of expectations
for teacher performance, the establishment of a common language to discuss instructional
practices, and improved dialogue about evaluation amongst teachers and school leaders
(Bradshaw, 2002). Challenges the evaluation system experienced included a struggle to find a
balance between the formative and summative nature of the system and a lack of evidence that
the evaluation policy was influencing teacher practice (Bradshaw, 2002). As the program
progressed, support waned due to insufficient resources, in both staffing and finances, to support
development, training, implementation, and monitoring of the program (Bradshaw, 2002). The
lack of resource provision by the state ultimately led to decreased support for NCTPAS in North
Carolina amongst both teachers and administrators (Bradshaw, 2002).
Curtis (2012) traced the implementation of teacher evaluation in Hillsborough County,
Florida to better understand the implementation process and the elements that supported and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 45

hindered the success and sustainability of the system. The study found that strong school
leadership and effective training and supervision of school site administrators were critical to the
long-term sustainability of the teacher evaluation system (Curtis, 2012). The support of the
school district in developing principals’ capacity as instructional leaders was essential to building
long-term sustainability of the system (Curtis, 2012). Additionally, frequent communication and
requests for feedback built trust and buy-in from teachers (Curtis, 2012). Again, support from the
district was critical in ensuring successful and sustainable implementation of a teacher evaluation
system.
The principal. Principals play a significant role in shaping organizational culture and
therefore can influence policy implementation (Fullan, 2007). If change is actively supported by
the principal it is more likely to be taken seriously and supported by teachers (Fullan, 2007). The
actions of principals legitimize change and the support they provide, both psychologically and
with resources, influence the seriousness teachers attribute to change (Fullan, 2007). The
influence of principal leadership on policy implementation is evident in comprehensive school
reform, teacher evaluation, curriculum adoption, and inclusion policy.
Comprehensive school reform. Studies of comprehensive school reform (CSR)
implementation demonstrates the influence of principal leadership on policy implementation. In
her study of the New American Schools, a CSR model, Datnow (2000) asserted that school
principals bridge the gap between district administration and the daily realities of teachers
working to implement change at their school sites (Datnow, 2000). Principals influence policy
implementation in a variety of ways. The way in which principals introduce reform measures to
staff can influence implementation (Datnow, 2000). Principal support of reform efforts and
inclusion of teachers in the decision-making process resulted in enthusiasm and buy-in on the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 46

part of teachers at their sites (Datnow, 2000). Additionally, the inclusion of teacher in decision-
making processes resulted in greater longevity in the implementation of reform measures
(Datnow, 2000). Conversely, principals advocating for a preferred reform without providing
sufficient information to teachers can result in both low levels of buy-in and altogether
abandonment of reform measures (Datnow, 2000). In another study of New American Schools,
Berends et al., (2001) found that the strongest indicator of successful implementation of the
policy was teacher perception of principal leadership. Principal leadership was the critical factor
in initial implementation and longevity of these school reform models.
In a seminal study, Little (1982) investigated schools as workplaces and determined
conditions that were conducive to success. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 105
teachers and fourteen administrators at six school sites along with observations (Little, 1982).
The study found that principals influence reform implementation by creating collaborative
cultures in schools (Little, 1982). Successful collaborative environments are characterized by
focused conversations about instructional strategies, frequent observations accompanied by
useful feedback, and collaboration to create instructional materials (Little, 1982). Principal
influence on school culture was key to successful outcomes.
Teacher evaluation. Although teachers may agree with the need for a new policy or
reform measure, their perception of principal support influences buy-in to change efforts. In a
quantitative study of teacher perceptions of new teacher evaluation policy in 37 Flemish
secondary schools, Tuytens and Devos (2009) found that teachers perceived the new evaluation
policy as needed in their schools, but also expressed concern about the way in which principals
would implement the policy. Delvaux et al. (2013) also studied evaluation policy in Flemish
schools. The study surveyed 1983 teachers in 65 Flemish schools to better understand the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 47

influence of evaluation policy on teacher professional development (Delvaux et al., 2013).
Teachers perceived evaluations as positively influencing professional development if their
principal demonstrated a positive attitude towards the policy and was a strong instructional
leader (Delvaux et al., 2013). The study also found that a positive relationship with the evaluator
resulted in a smaller influence on professional development (Delvaux et al., 2013). The
credibility of the evaluator resulted in a more significant influence on professional development
(Delvaux et al., 2013). Principal’s attitude towards policy and credibility in the implementation
of policy were critical for successful implementation and teacher support of the policy.
Kim and Youngs (2016) studied teacher and principal perceptions of evaluation policy in
South Korea and the United States. The study sought to understand not only perceptions, but also
factors that influence perceptions and how perceptions of policy influence implementation (Kim
& Youngs, 2016). Interviews were conducted with a total of eleven teachers and four principals
at four elementary schools (Kim & Youngs, 2016). The study found that the influence of the
teacher evaluation policy on teacher growth in the American schools depended on the “will and
capacity” of principals to carry out evaluations and support teacher growth based on evaluation
data (Kim & Youngs, 2016). The success of the policy was contingent on whether principals
were willing and able to implement the policy credibly. Principal’s support of the policy only
influenced teacher perceptions of the evaluation policy if teachers were not yet tenured (Kim &
Youngs, 2016). The authors suggested that untenured teachers need positive evaluation results to
keep their jobs, so this can influence the value they place on evaluation policy (Kim & Youngs,
2016).
Curriculum adoption. Principals also influence teacher support of curriculum adoption
and instructional practices. In a study of technology integration in Dutch kindergarten classes,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 48

teacher perceptions of principals’ support throughout implementation process influenced the
level of implementation in teachers’ classrooms (Cviko, McKenny, & Voogt, 2012). Geijsel,
Sleegers, Van den Berg, and Kelchtersmans (2001) studied the implementation of innovative
programs in Dutch agricultural training centers. In the study, 1249 teachers were surveyed from
28 sites to understand teacher perspectives on conditions that fostered successful program
implementation (Geijsel et al., 2001). The study found that teacher support of innovation was
influenced by transformational leadership, specifically by vision and intellectual stimulation
(Geijsel et al., 2001). Vision was defined as the perception teachers held about being involved in
the development of the school’s educational vision (Geijsel et al., 2001). Intellectual stimulation
was defined as the support teachers receive from school leadership for professional development,
through the provision of resources such as time and financing (Geijsel et al., 2001). The
inclusion of teachers in decision-making and support of teacher growth on the part of principals
was key to policy success. In a longitudinal study, Coburn (2005) investigated how principal
leadership influenced implementation of new reading policy in two California elementary
schools. Specifically, Coburn (2005) wanted to understand the influence of principals on teacher
sense-making around new policy. Coburn (2005) found that principals influence teacher sense-
making in three ways. First, school leaders’ knowledge and understanding about content and
how teachers learn influences teacher sensemaking about policy (Coburn, 2005). Second,
principals control teacher access to policy ideas by privileging certain information over other
information when implementation occurs (Coburn, 2005). Third, principals influence the social,
structural, and cultural conditions for learning within a school, which also influence teacher
sensemaking (Coburn, 2005). Teacher perception of principal support as well as the culture
principals promote in schools are critical to policy success.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 49

The teacher. A teacher’s personal beliefs about teaching, stage of career, and peer
interactions can influence teacher perceptions of policy and successful implementation. Doyle
and Ponder (1977) noted that teachers do not simply adopt new practices in the way
policymakers might envision, but instead adapt those practices to the context in which they work.
Teachers make sense of policy through the lens of their personal beliefs about education,
professional experience, the context in which they teach, and their interactions with colleagues
(Coburn, 2001; Datnow, 2000; Huberman, 1989; Kaufman et al., 2017; Kim & Youngs, 2016;
Little, 1982; Spillane et al., 2002).
Personal beliefs. Teacher’s beliefs and prior practices influence the way in which they
make sense of new policy (Spillane et al., 2002). Sensemaking can be defined as, “…the active
attempt to bring one’s past organization of knowledge and beliefs to bear in the construction of
meaning from present stimuli,” (Spillane et al., 2002, p. 394). When new policy or ideas are
presented to teachers their current “frame of reference” is how they interpret those new ideas
(Spillane et al., 2002, p. 395). Teachers interpret policy through the lens of their beliefs about
their subject matter, students, and reason for teaching (Spillane et al., 2002). A new policy is
understood through the lens of personal experience and beliefs, a critical factor for policymakers
and leaders to consider when introducing a new policy to teachers.
In their comparative study of teacher perceptions of teacher evaluation policy in Korea
and Michigan, Kim and Youngs (2016) found that Korean teachers did not support new teacher
evaluation policy because it did not align with their beliefs about teaching. The evaluation
system, called Teacher Appraisal for Professional Development (TAPD), focused on surveys of
colleagues, parents, and students coupled with observations by principals, master teachers, and
other teachers to give feedback on teacher performance (Kim & Youngs, 2016). The Ministry of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 50

Education hoped that the feedback teachers received would drive professional development (Kim
& Youngs, 2016). Korean teachers held in particular two strong beliefs that influenced the
implementation of the evaluation system. First, teachers viewed teaching as an independent art
form and therefore were not receptive to critical feedback (Kim & Youngs, 2016). Second,
teachers prioritized collegial relationships and therefore were reluctant to give any constructive
criticism in their evaluations of other teachers (Kim & Youngs, 2016). The intentions of the
policy, to support professional development, were adversely influenced by the personal beliefs of
teachers. Kim and Youngs (2016) also found that teacher and principal beliefs about what
defines an effective teacher influenced their perceptions of evaluations. Similarly, Datnow
(2000) asserted that the perceptions teachers hold regarding reform is often aligned with their
personal philosophy of education. Reform measures that more closely align with their
philosophy are more readily be accepted, and conversely, reforms that are not in alignment with
their philosophy are more often rejected (Datnow, 2000). An understanding of teacher beliefs is
an important component of the policy implementation process.
Professional experience. The stage of their career might also influence teacher
perceptions of policy. Huberman (1989) asserts that teachers enter different phases in their
careers that influenced their perceptions of education and change. Huberman (1989) interviewed
160 secondary teachers with a variety of teaching experience in Switzerland to better understand
teaching through the lens of career development. The study found that teachers enter different,
distinguishable phases throughout their careers. It is important to note that Huberman (1989)
does not suggest that movement through the phases is a linear process that all teachers
experience in the same way. Teachers experiences at each phase are influenced by how they
initially enter the teaching profession, traditional versus alternative paths, and by external factors
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 51

both personal and professional (Huberman, 1989). At the beginning of their careers enter a
“survival and discovery” phase characterized by both the “reality-shock” of daily teaching
responsibilities and the excitement of being in one’s own classroom (Huberman, 1989). The
initial stage occurs between years one and three in the profession. Second, teachers enter a
“stabilization” phase characterized by greater confidence, mastery of instructional skills, and a
granting of tenure which influenced the feeling of stability (Huberman, 1989). The second phase
occurs between years four and six in the profession. This final phase is characterized by a desire
for new challenges, experimentation with new strategies, and taking stock the successes and
barrier in one’s career (Huberman, 1989). Teachers in this phase may look to activism as they
recognize flaws in the education system that are perceived as barriers to success (Huberman,
1989). The third phase can last from year six throughout a teacher’s career. The phases that
teachers cycle through in their careers influenced the ways in which the view challenges and
their perceptions of a policy aimed at solving those challenges.
Studies focused on teacher support for evaluation and comprehensive school reform have
considered career stage. In Kim and Youngs’ (2016) study on teacher perceptions of evaluation
policy in Michigan and Korea the researchers found that teachers in Michigan with less than four
years of experience, in the “survival and discovery” phase (Huberman, 1989), were less resistant
to the new evaluation policy than more experienced teachers. Kim and Youngs (2016) suggested
that new teachers are still forming their identities as teachers and learning the cultures of the
schools they work in, making them more supportive of a new policy. Similarly, in their study of
the influence of evaluation on professional development Delvaux et al. (2013) found that
teachers with less than five years of experience described a more significant influence of
evaluation on professional development than more experienced teachers. Conversely, in their
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 52

study of comprehensive school reform implementation, Berends et al. (2001) did not find an
influence of experience on teacher support for the reform model. Teaching experience can vary
in its influence on teacher perceptions of policy.
Context and peer interactions. The context in which teachers work and the interactions
they engage in with colleagues can influence teacher perceptions of change. In her study of
comprehensive school reform, Datnow (2000) notes that schools are, “…social institutions
characterized by hierarchical relations of power and competing interests and ideologies,” (p.
367). Reform efforts can cause tension between teachers with competing beliefs (Datnow, 2000).
Little (1982) noted that collaboration amongst teachers is key to teacher growth and adaptability.
After interviewing 105 teachers at six urban schools, Little (1982) found that four characteristics
influenced continuous professional development. Teachers in more adaptable schools engaged in
frequent discussions of teaching practice, conduct peer observations with feedback, learn from
each other, and focus on concrete practices (Little, 1982). Frequent teacher collaboration around
practice was key to teacher growth and adaptability (Little, 1982). Coburn (2001) studied
collective sensemaking in curriculum adoption. The study found that teachers created a shared
understanding of change through formal and informal interactions with each other about
curriculum (Coburn, 2001). The interactions teachers engaged in influenced their perceptions of
the curriculum (Coburn, 2001). In their study of teacher evaluation policy, Kim and Youngs
(2016) found that relationships with colleagues influenced teacher support of evaluation policy.
Korean teachers particularly valued relationships with their colleagues more than the evaluation
policy, which required teachers to evaluate each other, and therefore tended to give colleagues
high ratings (Kim & Youngs, 2016). Teachers took it as a personal insult if a colleague gave
them low ratings and would be more likely to argue about the rating than reflect on their practice
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 53

(Kim & Youngs, 2016). The unwillingness to critique colleagues influenced the success and
support of the evaluation system. Peer interactions are critical to the growth of teachers and the
success of a policy.
The context in which teachers work influences their perceptions of change. In a study that
surveyed 1321 teachers’ perceptions of their state content standards and assessments teachers
working in schools receiving Title 1 funding were more likely to support the use of state content
standards for instruction (Kaufman et al., 2017). Additionally, teachers with higher percentages
of English language learners (ELLs) and students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) were
more likely to support the use of state content standards for instruction (Kaufman et al., 2017).
Secondary (6-12) teachers were also more likely to support state standards than elementary (K-5)
teachers (Kaufman et al., 2017). Context influences the perceptions teachers hold about
educational change.
Summary
Teacher evaluation systems are traditionally viewed as perfunctory visits by
administrators yielding little feedback coupled with little improvement in teaching practice or
student outcomes (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Hallinger et al., 2014; Papay, 2012; Tuytens &
Devos, 2014; Weisberg et al., 2009). The significant investments of both financial and human
capital makes understanding what supports and hinders the implementation of teacher evaluation
systems critical. Understanding the teacher perspective in this process is imperative because
teachers can influence implementation and sustainability of policy (Coburn, 2001, 2005;
Kaufman et al., 2017; Fullan, 2007; Spillane, 2000).
This literature review discussed current teacher evaluation practice and the federal role in
education reform policy. Research on teacher perceptions of reform and innovation were
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 54

discussed through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) framework for understanding educational change.
Teachers’ perceptions of change are influenced by how they perceive the need, clarity,
complexity, and practicality/quality of change (Fullan, 2007). Furthermore, teachers’ perceptions
are influenced by their own experiences and beliefs as well as the colleagues and administrators
they work with at their school site (Fullan, 2007).

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 55

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to understand the teacher evaluation system in Hawaii
from the teacher perspective. This chapter includes descriptions of the procedures that were used
to gather data for the study and the methods that were used to analyze the data that were
collected. The chapter describes the following: (a) the research questions; (b) the research
design; (c) instrumentation; and (d) data collection and analysis procedures.
Research Questions
This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to answer the following questions that
that guided the study.
How do teachers in Hawaii perceive the Educator Effectiveness System?
The following sub-questions guided research:
1. How do teachers’ perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness system align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
2. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
3. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with local
characteristics (district, principal, teacher)?
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions held by teachers of the
Educator Effectiveness System (EES). Qualitative methods were used to understand the
relationship between perception and practice. Semi-structured interviews were used in hopes of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 56

adding to the collective understanding of how EES is perceived by teachers and how it is related
to their practice and professional growth.
Qualitative methods are appropriate for when researchers desire to understand how a
population interprets and constructs meaning from their experiences (Merriam, 2009). A
constructivist worldview underpins qualitative research as researchers seek to understand the
situation being studied through the perspective of participants in the situation with the underlying
assumption that people construct meanings through engagement with the world in which they
exist (Creswell, 2014). The goal of this study was to give voice to the teacher perspective on
EES and to understand the factors that influence their support of the system.
Qualitative methods were appropriate to meet this goal because they created a picture of not
merely how the EES program works, but how teachers perceive the system. Maxwell (2013)
emphasizes that qualitative methods allow a researcher to understand a process, not just an
outcome. Corbin and Strauss (2008) further explain that qualitative research allows the
researcher to move beyond what is known and start to see the world from the perspectives of
participants and in doing so make discoveries that add to a discipline’s empirical knowledge.
Qualitative methods helped me to better understand the implementation of EES through the
perspectives of participants.
Specifically, within a qualitative framework, a case study was used. A case study is
defined by Merriam (2009) as “…an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system,” (p.
40). A descriptive case study can be used to provide a concrete and in-depth understanding of a
specific issue, in this case teachers and their perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness System, in
a specific context (Merriam, 2009). Yin (2014) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that,
“…investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context…” (p.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 57

16). This method of investigation was appropriate when analyzing policy implementation
because it gave a rich and in-depth picture of the perceptions of practitioners carrying out the
policy.
Hawaii Context
Hawaii is a unique educational context in the United States because the entire state is one
district under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE). The
HIDOE serves over 180,000 students, employs nearly 11,000 teachers, and oversees 289 schools
(department and charter) across the state (HIDOE, 2016). The HIDOE is governed by a nine-
member governor appointed and senate approved Board of Education (BOE) which also includes
a non-voting high school student member appointed by the Hawaii State Student Council and a
non-voting military representative appointed by the senior military commander in Hawaii
(HIDOE, 2015). Among the responsibilities of the BOE are creating state education policy,
adopting student performance standards and assessments, and monitoring school success
(HIDOE, 2015). The Superintendent of Education is appointed by the Board of Education and
manages the academic and educational programs in the state with the assistance of the Deputy
Superintendent (HIDOE, 2015). The public schools in Hawaii are divided into fifteen regional
administrative units known as Complex Areas consisting of one or more school complexes. A
school complex consists of a high school and its feeder middle and elementary schools (HIDOE,
2015). Each Complex Area is supervised by a complex area superintendent who reports directly
to the Deputy Superintendent (HIDOE, 2015). The unique structure of public education in
Hawaii and its award in the first round of Race to the Top make it an important context to study
to better understand how teachers perceive local implementation of federally supported policy.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 58

Teacher Evaluation in Hawaii
The Hawaii State Department of Education developed its teacher evaluation system as
part of the application process for the first round of the Race to the Top grant competition.
Hawaii was awarded $75 million in 2010 to implement the comprehensive school reform plan
they outlined in their application, including the Educator Effectiveness System. In December
2011, the U.S. Department of Education warned Hawaii that it risked losing its Race to the Top
funding because it was not making adequate progress towards its goals, a warning specifically
connected to the teacher evaluation system (Winkler, Scull, & Zeehandelaar, 2012). This
warning triggered quick negotiations between the Hawaii State Teacher Association (HSTA) and
the state to draft a contract that allowed student achievement data to be included in teacher
evaluations, and even though an agreement was reached union member failed to approve the new
contract (Winkler et al., 2012). Hawaii was then placed on a “high-risk” status to lose their
RTTT funding. In May 2012, following a visit from USHIDOE officials, and a second set of
negotiations, union member approved the new contract, which included the use of student
achievement data in teacher evaluations (Winkler et al., 2012).
Half-way through the first school year of full implementation, 2013-2014, the Hawaii
Department of Education and the HSTA surveyed all HSTA members to better understand
teachers’ experience with EES (HIDOE, 2014). Approximately thirty percent of teachers
responded to the survey. The survey showed that 43% of teachers felt that evaluator bias would
influence observations. Likewise, 40% of teachers doubted administrator objectivity when rating
the Student Learning Objectives. Teachers also doubted Tripod Student Survey, with 64%
expressing that they did not believe students would thoughtfully complete the survey (HIDOE,
2014). Based on feedback received the department applied 18 changes to EES to simplify,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 59

streamline, and differentiate the system to better meet the needs of teachers and administrators
(HIDOE, 2015). Another survey was given again one year later, in the middle of the second year
of implementation, to gain feedback to support improvement efforts (HIDOE, 2015). The survey
found that teachers expressed increased understanding of the components and goals of EES as
well as increased trust in the ability of evaluators to be fair and knowledgeable when completing
evaluations (HIDOE, 2015). Teachers expressed a desire for differentiation based on what
ratings they attained, more time, more training, and improved communication including feedback
(HIDOE, 2015). In May 2016 the Hawaii State Board of Education, upon recommendation from
a joint committee of members of the Hawaii Department of Education and Hawaii State Teachers
Association, the use of student test scores were eliminated in teacher evaluations (HIDOE,
2016). Through the implementation process teacher voices have been sought out by the state, but
not through an in-depth approach.
The Educator Effectiveness System (EES) is a multi-measure evaluation system, with the
expressed purpose of supporting educator growth and improvement through the provision of
feedback, coaching, and data to inform instructional practice (Hawaii Department of Education,
2017). The system focuses on giving feedback, support, and evaluation in two equally weighted
categories- Teacher Practice and Student Learning and Growth split between three components
(HIDOE, 2017).
30% — Classroom Observations, using the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching
for classroom teachers, or Working Portfolios for non-classroom teachers;
20% — Core Professionalism, using the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching,
and reflecting on data and feedback from the Tripod Student Survey and Hawaii Growth
Model;
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 60

50% — Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) / School-System Improvement Objectives
(SSIO), focusing on standards-aligned learning goals and integrating the data team
process to monitor student progress. (HIDOE, 2017)
Scores within these categories provide the basis for an overall rating of either highly effective,
effective, marginal, or unsatisfactory (HIDOE, 2017). Teachers with an overall rating of
effective or highly effective become eligible for a pay increase the next school year (HIDOE,
2017). The EES is presented as a system focused on growth, increased teacher effectiveness, and
supporting professional learning. The Department of Education seeks to support increased
educator effectiveness through four pathways (1) clarifying expectations; (2) providing feedback;
(3) driving professional development; (4) valuing collaboration (HIDOE, 2017).
Population and Sample
This study focused on teacher perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness System as the
unit of analysis. Teachers in this study were recruited through purposive sampling. Purposive
sampling involves a researcher seeking out individuals who demonstrate a specific characteristic
and asking them to participate in the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). This was an
appropriate sampling approach because this study sought to understand the perceptions of a
specific population better. There are two main characteristics that this study used to recruit
teachers. First, teachers interviewed for this study came from the same Complex Area. It was
assumed that teachers within the same complex had a similar experience with implementation of
EES. Focusing on one complex area was kept consistent to better understand the perceptions of
teachers with similar experiences of implementation. Complex Areas can vary in organizational
culture and are under the leadership of a superintendent who influences policy implementation
This study, therefore, focused on one Complex Area to better understand the perceptions of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 61

teachers who experienced a similar implementation process and organizational culture. Before
reaching out to teachers, I contacted the superintendent of the Complex Area to give notification
about the study, although the HIDOE did not require approval from the superintendent. Second,
this study focused on teachers with a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience. One reason
this range was used is that these teachers have experienced EES since its initial implementation.
Additionally, teachers with experience over five years are in what Huberman (1989) describes as
the stabilization and experimentation/activism stage of career development. Teachers at this
stage are characterized by having a strong commitment to the profession, greater confidence in
their knowledge of instructional strategies, a desire for new challenges, and an awareness of
barriers to change within a school or district (Huberman, 1989). All secondary teachers within
the Aloha Aina Complex Area were contacted via email with details of the study to solicit their
participation in the study. There were 235 individual emails sent out to teachers, and 15
responses were received with 10 meeting the participant criteria of more than five years of
teaching.
Description of the Sample
The study site, Aloha Aina Complex Area (AACA), a pseudonym, is one of sixteen complex
areas within the Hawaii Department of Education. Schools within the Hawaii Department of
Education are combined into a Complex consisting of a high school and the elementary and
middle schools that feed into that high school. A Complex Area consists of two to four
Complexes and is supported by its own Complex Area Superintendent and support staff for the
schools in that Complex Area. The AACA employs almost 600 teachers and serves over 4,000
students.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 62

The ten study participants, who all worked in Hawaii Public Schools for more than five
years, are referred to within the study using pseudonyms. The ten participants volunteered to
participate in the study in response to an email soliciting participation sent by the researcher to
all secondary teachers within the AACA. All interviews were conducted over a four-week period
in late-August and early-September 2017 by phone due to location, I reside in Los Angeles and
the participants all reside in Hawaii, at varying days and times to fit participants’ scheduling
needs.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Name Years Taught Grade Level Subject Area
Marie 9 9-12 Social Science
Matt 14 10-12 Social Science
Isabel 27 9-12 Physical Education
Elias 20 6-8 Performing Arts
Renee 11 9-12 Math
Sandra 16 9-12 Elective
Claire 28 8 Science
Carrie 10 6, 8 Social Science
Grace 15 6-8 Special Education
Robert 17 10 Science

Instrumentation
Interviews are an appropriate method of data collection within qualitative research
because they allow researchers to collect information on people’s feelings and behaviors that
may not be observable (Merriam, 2009). The strength of using interviews lie in their specific
targeting of case study topics and the insight they provide about personal views and perceptions
(Yin, 2014). Weaknesses of using interviews can lie in bias due to poorly constructed questions,
reflexivity of interviewees answering in a way they think the researcher wants to hear, response
bias, and poor recall of events on the part of the interviewee (Yin, 2014). Semi-structured
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 63

interviews were conducted with teachers focused on their experiences with EES and their
perceptions of its influence on their practice. A semi-structured interview is characterized by a
mix of both more structured questions and less structured questions (Merriam, 2009). Structured
questions allow the researcher to gain specific information while less structured questions allow
the researcher to respond to emerging topics that come up in the course of the interview
(Merriam, 2009). Interview questions were developed to capture participants’ experiences,
behaviors, opinions, values, knowledge, and backgrounds. Interview questions focused on
capturing both the experiences and perceptions of teachers participating in the EES program.
The interview protocol was developed to gather data aligned with Fullan’s (2007) Educational
Change framework to understand teachers’ perceptions focused on the need, clarity, complexity,
and practicality of the Educator Effectiveness System.
Data Collection
Before initiating research, the researcher requested and obtained permission from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Southern California. Additionally, the
researcher obtained permission, as is required, from the Hawaii Department of Education to
conduct this research. The interviews of individual teachers were scheduled with participating
teachers at their convenience over a four-week period in August and September 2017. Interviews
were conducted via phone and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Due to time and location, each
participant was only interviewed one time. Interviews were conducted in the following manner:
(1) researcher introduction; (2) overview of the purpose of the study; (3) assurance of
confidentiality; (4) explanation of the interview format; and (5) semi-structured interview
questions. All participants were assigned an identification number to ensure anonymity.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 64

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using Creswell’s (2014) six steps for data analysis in qualitative
research. First, data were organized and prepared for analysis (Creswell, 2014). After interviews
were complete, each interview was transcribed using rev.com, giving a word for word
transcription. Second, the researcher read transcripts and listened to all audio recordings to
ensure transcription accuracy and to gain a general sense of the data (Creswell, 2014). NVivo
software was used to organize and code interview data. Third, coding was completed using the
Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The first step in data analysis using the
Constant Comparative Method is open coding (Strauss, 1987). I reviewed the interview
transcripts for specific examples of how teachers’ perceptions of EES aligned with Fullan’s
(2007) characteristics of change. Through this initial phase I also looked for any emergent codes
that fell outside of Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of change. The second phase of coding was
axial coding where the researcher looked for common ideas and themes that emerged from the
data related to teachers’ perceptions of EES through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) educational
change framework (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss, 1987). Selective codes were then grouped
to bring forth the main themes in the data (Strauss, 1987). The process allowed for an
understanding between the data and the objective of the study, to understand teacher perceptions
of EES through Fullan’s (2007) educational change framework.
Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness
This study took several measures to ensure validity, reliability, and trustworthiness. One
strategy used to ensure validity is researcher’s position or reflexivity. This strategy entails the
researcher making clear her biases, dispositions, and assumptions related to the study and data
analysis (Merriam, 2009). This is addressed later in this chapter. A strategy that was used to
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 65

ensure validity and reliability was the documentation of rich, thick description of the participants
and findings (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009). Reliability in qualitative research refers to the
consistency of the research design and process (Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2014). Several
strategies were used to ensure reliability in this study. First, after interviews were transcribed I
read and listened to the interviews to ensure accuracy. Gibbs (2007) advises that transcription
checking for accuracy by the researcher supports reliability. Next, I guarded against “definitional
drift” of codes by writing memos regarding the definition of codes and returning to those
definitions throughout the coding process to ensure consistency in the coding process (Gibbs,
2007). Additionally, this study used peer debriefing/examination to review the process, data
analysis, and findings. This strategy involves presenting information about the study to a person
who can review and ask questions about the study (Creswell, 2014). Peer debriefing/examination
was built into the study through the dissertation proposal and defense process.
Limitations
The first limitation of this study is the lack of generalizable findings due to its small
sample size. This qualitative study presents stories that may be unique to individual teachers and
not representative of the entire population of teachers in Hawaii Public Schools. A second
limitation of this study is that it relies on self-reported data. Participation by teachers in this
study was voluntary and relied on the honesty of participants. A third limitation of this study is
that it focused on one Complex Area within the Hawaii Department of Education and therefore
represents the unique perspectives of teachers within this Complex Area and may not be
representative of other Complex Areas. It was assumed that teachers within one Complex Area
would have similar experiences with the implementation of EES. Surprisingly, only one teacher
of the ten interviewed expressed a desire to revert to the system in place prior to EES. It is
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 66

assumed that had the sample size been larger or spanned multiple Complex Areas perhaps other
teachers may have expressed this sentiment.
Delimitations
The first delimitation involves the timeline established for data collection. Participants in
this study were interviewed once, over a one month period, at the beginning of the school year. It
is possible that teacher perspectives might change throughout the school year based on their
experiences during that year. Second, the instrumentation and measure for data collection and
analysis, the interview protocol, was created and implemented by the researcher. Third, the
sample was limited to teachers who have spent a minimum of five years teaching in Hawaii
Public schools and does not take into account the perspectives of new teachers, those with less
than five years in the field. This limits the generalizability of the study’s findings.
Positionality and Biases
The researcher in this study is a veteran teacher with eleven years of personal experience
with teacher evaluation. At the advent of my career the full force of No Child Left Behind was
being placed on schools and teachers. The frustration teachers felt was akin to being, as Datnow
and Park (2009) termed it, treated as “objects of reform” rather than partners or “agents of
change.” This frustration fuels my interests and desire to understand education policy and reform
from the perspective of teachers, to understand how policy relates to their practice. My goal is to
understand teacher perspectives and to give them a voice, which can in turn inform policy. As a
veteran teacher with eleven years of experience with teacher evaluation, my beliefs about teacher
evaluation policy could easily influence my perceptions of interview data. My own beliefs about
teacher evaluation, as a result of my experiences, connect with the ideas that evaluation is a
perfunctory exercise with little meaningful feedback or support. I was cognizant of my own
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 67

biases to ensure that I reported and analyzed the data as it was presented by participants and not
through the lens of my own perception of evaluation.
Ethics
The reliability and validity of this study hinge on the ethical positioning of the researcher
(Merriam, 2009). Before conducting my research, I obtained IRB approval from both USC and
the Hawaii Department of Education. I was transparent and honest about the purpose of my with
study participants prior to collecting data and notified them of their right to skip any questions
they did not feel comfortable answering or forgo participation altogether. Additionally, I sought
participant permission to audio record their interviews. Participants were given a ten dollar gift
card as a token of appreciation for their time after completion of the interview. The anonymity of
participants was protected through the use of pseudonyms throughout the study and careful
disclosure of details that might identify participants.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 68

Chapter Four: Findings
This study addressed the problem of limited research on teacher perceptions of teacher
evaluation policy. The purpose of this study was to understand the teacher evaluation system in
Hawaii from the teacher perspective. Understanding the teacher perspective on teacher
evaluation policy can help policymakers better understand the implementation process and adjust
requirements or deliver additional support (Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Furthermore, understanding
the teacher perspective can help policymakers and school leaders better understand problems
teachers experience with policy and work to generate solutions (Tuytens & Devos, 2009).
Inattention to the concerns of teachers with regards to new policy increases the risk of policy
failure (Van der Vegt, Smyth, & Vandenberghe, 2001). Therefore, this study sought to
understand the perceptions Hawaii teachers hold about the Educator Effectiveness System.
In the literature review (Chapter 2), teachers’ perceptions of change were viewed through
Fullan’s educational change framework. Fullan (2007) asserts that implementation of educational
change is influenced by nine factors arranged into three categories: (1) characteristics of the
change or innovation, (2) local characteristics, and (3) external factors. This study focused on the
first two categories because teachers’ perception of change at the local level is the focus of this
study. The four characteristics of change that affect implementation are (a) need, (b) clarity, (c)
complexity, and (d) practicality/quality (Fullan, 2007). Local characteristics that can affect
change include the school districts, school boards, the community, principals, and teachers
(Fullan, 2007). The following Research Questions guided the study’s inquiry:
How do teachers in Hawaii perceive the Educator Effectiveness System?
The following sub-questions guided the research:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 69

1. How do teachers’ perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness system align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
2. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with the four
characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality)?
3. How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new evaluation policy align with local
characteristics (district, principal, teacher)?
Qualitative methods were used in this study. These methods included semi-structured,
individual interviews that sought to understand teachers’ perceptions about the implementation
of the Educator Effectiveness System, the factors influence their perceptions of EES and support
of the system.
Research Sub-Question 1: Teacher Perceptions of EES
Research sub question one asked, “How do teachers’ perceptions of the Educator
Effectiveness system align with the four characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity,
practicality)?” Fullan asserts that the four characteristics of change that affect implementation
are: (a) need, (b) clarity, (c) complexity, and (d) practicality/quality (Fullan, 2007). Research sub
question one was designed to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness
System through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of change and each section describes
the significant themes connected to that characteristic.
Need
Need focuses on the understanding that teachers hold about the need for the policy in
their local context (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). When asked about the need for EES
to help improve teaching practice teachers expressed that there was a need for change in teacher
evaluation, but teachers did not agree that the way EES was implemented adequately fulfilled
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 70

that need. Teachers expressed that with the previous system there was insufficient accountability
for teachers or administrators, insufficient feedback to support teaching practice, and a lack of
clear expectations. Within the area of need the following themes emerged: need for timely
feedback from administrators and need for clear and specific expectations.
Need for timely feedback from administrators. All teachers in this study discussed the
need for timely feedback coupled with support to improve their teaching practice. Teachers in
this study desired timely feedback to support growth in their teaching practice. Isabel expressed
that feedback is always needed so teachers can, “…improve in those areas that are lacking…it’s
a necessary evil.” Isabel noted that the previous system left a need for improved feedback for
teachers and improved reflection by teachers. She added that the frequency of evaluations with
the previous system would give administrators little opportunity to gauge instructional
improvement noting, “…if you’re gonna really do your evaluations based on one year and then
don't give them another evaluation for another two, three years, how do you know if they've
improved? If you only evaluate them once a year.” Grace looked at evaluation through the lens
of life-long learning noting:
I'd hope that there aren't that many educators who are of the mindset okay, I'm done
learning how to be a good teacher. I'd hope they, everybody in the state of Hawaii, and I
know I'm a dreamer, but I hope that it's our goal to continue to improve our practice.
We're never done, as educators, learning the next great thing.
Feedback through evaluation was perceived as an essential part of reflecting and growing as a
professional. Claire emphasized that additional support should be the focus of feedback, rather
than hiring or firing decisions. Participants felt that a change in evaluation was needed so
teachers could receive more timely feedback and support to improve their practice. All teachers
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 71

in this study agreed with Danielson and McGreal (2000) that timely feedback was a critical and
needed component of an evaluation system that would offer support to improve their practice.
When asked about the frequency and quality of feedback they received through EES
seven out of the ten teachers in this study did not perceive EES as fulfilling the need for more
timely feedback. Teachers defined timely as receiving feedback at multiple points throughout the
school year on their practice. With the implementation of EES, teachers experienced feedback
only once or twice a school year from their administrator, usually at the end of the year, which
was the same as the previous system. Sandra commented,
…allocation and resources put out to provide feedback and to connect the dots from the
data collected isn't there, so it's not effective…It's always feeling like a scramble to
collect this information, to get the data points in. Then it's the end of the year, and so
there's no time left for sitting down and having a real conversation. I have had a
conversation with one vice principal I think two years ago, and she was really good, but
that was pretty much about it. The conversation really stayed with her and me. I don't
know where it went from there.
Teachers primarily received general summative feedback at the end of the year that had little
influence on their instructional practice. Robert echoed Sandra’s sentiments that the feedback he
received had little influence on his practice, commenting, “We didn't get anything like life-
changing out of it, you know? Or something that, "Wow, that makes me such a better teacher." I
didn't really get that.” All teachers in this study expressed a desire for feedback that would help
them improve their practice, but only three felt that EES improved the quality and timeliness of
the feedback they received. In this way teacher sentiment aligned EES with previous research on
traditional methods teacher evaluation, as a perfunctory visit by an administrator with little
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 72

meaningful feedback (Danielson, 2001; Hallinger et al., 2014; Papay, 2012; Tuytens & Devos,
2014; Weisberg et al., 2009).
Need for clear and specific expectations. Teachers expressed a need for an evaluation
system that was more objective with specific and clear expectations that administrator used to
measure teacher performance. Marie noted that the previous system did not drive teachers to
reflect on their practice in an intentional and specific way because it lacked clear expectations.
Additionally, administrators could use more arbitrary measures, such as the number of office
referrals a teacher gave, to measure teacher performance. Renee also pointed to the vague
expectations of the previous system and the need for more explicit expectations. She commented,
I feel like it's more focused, I feel like it was a lot more vague before. I did all this work
and wrote up all this stuff, but I didn't really know why or who was going to read it or if
it was even necessary. Now there's clearer expectations…Before you could just pick
whatever topic and it didn't really matter. Now it's more focused on student data.
Teachers felt that EES helped them to be more intentional in the ways they approached
improving their practice by focusing on the use of student data to drive instructional
improvement. The expectations outlined through observation rubrics and the SLOs were clear
and pushed teachers to analyze data and reflect on their practice. The sentiments of these
teachers aligned with previous studies’ finding that clear and explicit expectations increased
teacher buy-in to evaluation (Bradshaw, 2002; Donaldson & Papay, 2012). EES provided clearer
expectations and guidelines in comparison with the previous system and thus allowed teachers to
target specific areas of their practice to improve.
EES also improved the capacity to identify teachers who exhibit weakness in their
practice and need support. Matt noted that evaluation is, “…a very useful tool for documenting
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 73

an objective hard conversation...” with teachers who are not performing well in the classroom.
Renee added that it is good to have a system that ensures teachers who are not performing well
are removed before tenure is granted. In the view of these two teachers, EES lent itself to
objective conversations about practice that might either lead to extra support or dismissal.
Teachers viewed EES as providing clear expectations for performance and helping
administrators engage in more objective conversations about performance. While teachers
expressed a desire for more specific and frequent feedback from administrators, they felt that
EES met the need for a more specific and focused evaluation system and helped them to focus on
improving specific areas of their practice.
Clarity
Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the policy (Fullan,
2007). EES is defined by the Hawaii Department of Education as a “…comprehensive process to
evaluate teachers’ performance…to determine how to best target supports for teacher growth and
improvement,” (HIDOE, 2016, p.1). The policy objective states that EES supports teacher
development by clarifying expectation about what comprises successful teaching, providing
regular feedback, driving professional development opportunities, and facilitating collaboration
(HIDOE, 2016). Clarity explores teacher understanding of the elements of EES and the program
as a whole. Within the area of clarity, the following themes emerged: lack of clarity during initial
implementation and lack of clarity about the final effectiveness rating.
Lack of clarity during the initial implementation. Teachers discussed what they
perceived as a rushed implementation of EES that influence their overall understanding of the
system from the beginning. When asked about the introduction of EES in 2013-2014 school year
six of the teachers described the rollout of EES as confusing and overwhelming, signaling that
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 74

teachers experienced a lack of clarity about the purpose and elements of EES from the time of its
initial implementation. Elias was a part of the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) team at his
school site, a group that helped with the implementation of EES as well as supporting
professional learning opportunities at his site. In this capacity Elias engaged in frequent
discussions with other teachers at his site about EES. He noted two problems with the roll-out of
EES. First, veteran teachers felt unsure about why a change in teacher evaluation was taking
place and they were being asked to make, in their view, dramatic changes to their teaching
practice. Second, he noted that when leaders from the HIDOE came to present to teachers about
EES they often left the teachers with more questions than they came with and were not readily
available to provide clarity. Claire, who works at the same school site at Elias, agreed that the
initial training brought confusion and that there was a high degree of variability in the quality of
trainers introducing EES. She noted:
The quality of the trainers is very variable, that's inequitable. Trainers can be good
because they really understand it, or they can be mediocre 'cause they sort of understand
it. Or they can be really bad, 'cause they don't really have a clue.
Renee agreed that during the roll-out it was evident that all stakeholders were still trying to
figure out the system, noting:
We had trainings where we watched a bunch of videos which I feel like were not super
effective and I feel like for a long time our administrators were still trying to figure it out
which means no one really knew what was going on. So, I'd say [the trainings were] kind
of vague and not very specific or helpful. More like what hoops do I have to jump
through to get an effective rating?
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 75

The roll-out felt haphazard and therefore the impression was made that there was a lack of
forethought in the adoption of EES, which gave the impression that EES was not really different
that previous evaluation systems. All teachers in this study expressed a clear understanding of
the system components now, but these six teachers’ overall perception of EES was influenced
negatively by the lack of clarity during the initial roll-out of the system.
Four teachers contended that the stress felt by teachers was not necessarily from lack of
clarity about the individual components of EES, but rather from the ambiguity of the
implementation process. There was a lack of clarity about how the system components worked
together and how schools were supposed to implement the system. The term “bureaucracy” was
mentioned by these four teachers when describing the implementation of EES. Robert, a high
school teacher, noted that he was interested in a new evaluation process when EES was first
introduced rolled out and felt that the fact that the foundation of EES was the work of Charlotte
Danielson and McGreal (2000) legitimized the new system. His interest quickly faded as he
realized the burden of work that teachers and administrators were going to bear to complete EES
in addition to the other duties required of their job. He felt that the ambiguous and burdensome
nature of the system reduced its potential to influence practice. Grace, a middle school teacher,
agreed that the system components were clear, but that the process of evaluation was totally
overwhelming recalling, “And they were very clear, they were like this is on the job, embedded
professional development. So, it's the best kind. And we were like okay, but we're all gonna die.
We get it, we totally get it, but ah.” These teachers felt that there was a lack of clarity about how
EES was to be integrated into their existing practice. Even though the various components were
clear, it felt as though the system was just another task to be completed in addition to the
numerous tasks that were already a part of their jobs. The knowledge that EES was meant to be
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 76

job-embedded was not accompanied by clarity on how to integrate the evaluation process into
their day-to-day responsibilities. Teachers in this study expressed that over time they gained
clarity about the elements of EES, but desired a clear and comprehensive view of how EES
would best be integrated into their teaching practice. A lack of clarity about the implementation
process negatively influences teachers’ perception, which aligns with Kaufman et al.’s (2017)
finding that a lack of clarity about the elements of reform can influence teacher perceptions of
reform policy.
Lack of clarity about the final effectiveness rating. A particular area where teachers
expressed a lack of clarity was in how the annual final effectiveness rating is calculated. When
asked about the criteria to obtain the highest rating, highly effective, all teacher expressed that
the criteria were vague to both teachers and administrators. Matt contended that the
administrators he works with are unable to give concrete examples of the difference between an
effective and highly effective rating, which causes frustration for teachers. Robert commented
that rating seems to change from year to year with no explanation further noting, “…it just
seemed like it was basically you’re at the whim of the evaluator or something, I don't know.”
Teachers perceived the overall effectiveness rating as subjective, in contrast with the overall
perception teachers held that the system components, which influence the final effectiveness
rating, were more specific, focused, and objective than the previous system. Teachers perceived
the components of EES as objective, but the final effectiveness rating as more subjective. Robert
also commented on the idea that evaluations represent a “snapshot,” that administrators do not
spend very much time in classrooms to obtain a full picture of instructional practices. Elias
further commented that observations are often short, less than a full class period, and it is
difficult to understand how a small amount of data can inform an effectiveness rating. Sandra
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 77

noted that she felt a rating was important to have so teachers can gauge their performance, but
also commented that she perceived the final effectiveness rating as highly subjective. She
commented:
…if you have a good VP or a good administrator, yeah they'll pat me on the back as well.
If it's not a great administrator, they might question it to death and make you feel like
you're walking out with your head hanging. It's kind of subjective, and I think it is
important to have ways to go, "What do you do from there? How do you scaffold this
into an effective management?" I think that the point is how do you scaffold it [feedback]
into an effective management system.
Although EES was promoted as an objective measure of teacher effectiveness, teachers still
perceived the final effectiveness rating as a subjective measure of teacher effectiveness with little
follow-through. Administrators spent little time in their classrooms and it remained unclear to
teachers what the difference was between the different effectiveness ratings.
Teachers commented that the ambiguity of how to attain a highly effective rating began
as soon as EES was first introduced. In the initial roll-out of EES, Renee said that teachers at her
high school were told that being rated “highly effective” was nearly impossible and almost
immediately turned people against the new evaluation policy. She read the sentiment of the staff
after that to be, “What hoops do I have to jump through to get an effective rating?” Claire
expressed the same sentiment, that she just wanted to know what step she had to take to get the
scores that would get her an effective rating. Although EES offered teachers clearer and more
specific performance expectation, teachers felt a lack of clarity about how they could attain
different levels of proficiency and at the same time felt anxious about obtaining a lower than
effective rating. Three teachers expressed confidence about how a “highly effective” rating was
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 78

attained, but all described the pathway to “highly effective” in a different way. Marie and Carrie
said that the difference between highly effective and effective comes down to the role the teacher
plays in the classroom. Marie described a “highly effective” teacher in this way:
In order to get the highly effective rating you need to not only be the teacher but you have
to be able to, within that lesson, step into a facilitator's role where you're basically giving
the students the stage to showcase their ability to either work in groups, interact with the
curriculum, things like that. And that's really the difference between effective and highly
effective. In effective, you're a good teacher, you've got good relationships with your
kids, you've got good classroom management. To get highly effective, it's about basically
giving over the stage and letting the student's kind of take over and showcase their
ability.
In their view highly effective teachers embrace the role of facilitator over a primary focus on
direct instruction. Carrie did note the shifting definition of “highly effective” as EES has been
modified since its inception. Grace described in detail the three components that influence the
final effectiveness rating that teachers get, noting that she felt evaluation needed to be more
connected to the school level, rather than the state, she commented:
I think that having it be at the statewide level and trying to have it look all the same, and
having the computerized database system and the calculation of whether or not you're
highly effective, effective, marginal, whatever. I feel like some teachers feel like they're
mystified by how their score gets calculated, or they don't agree with it. And if that were
a collaborative conversation with your administrator, maybe that won't work out for
everyone because not everybody has a good relationship with their administrator. But I
just feel like if it were more at the school level, that it would be more meaningful.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 79

Although teachers felt clarity on the expectations and individual components of EES, teachers in
this study demonstrated a lack of clarity about how those components worked together to
calculate the final effectiveness rating. Furthermore, there was a clear perception of the final
effectiveness rating being subjective and dependent on the relationship between the teacher and
administrator. Teachers’ perceptions of EES was negatively influenced by their lack of clarity
about how the final effectiveness rating was calculated and the perception that the overall final
effectiveness rating was more subjective than the individual components of the system.
Complexity
Complexity includes the extent, difficulty, and magnitude of change required by an
individual to implement policy (Fullan, 2007). Complexity can be measured as a shift in
ideological mindset, change in teaching strategies, acquisition of new skills, and the use of new
materials (Fullan, 2007). Teachers in this study spoke to the burdensome nature of specific
components of EES and connected the burdensome feeling to the ideological mindset shifts EES
required in defining teacher effectiveness. The implementation of EES represented a shift in how
teachers were evaluated in Hawaii and the evidence they were asked to provide to demonstrate
their effectiveness as a teacher. Within the area of complexity the following themes emerged: a
negative influence on veteran teachers and the challenges of simple versus complex change.
Negative influence on veteran teachers. This study focused on the perspective of
teachers with at least five years of teaching experience, rather than brand new teachers. One
teacher talked about the influence of EES on “old timers,” her term for veteran teachers. Isabel,
who has 26 years of teaching experience, shared, “I think there have been a lot of the old timers
that quit because of the new system, yeah, 'cause they feel like they've been burdened because
they were so used to something so simple for so long.” She further expounded that the amount of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 80

work involved in collecting data and keeping the copious records required by EES drove these
teachers to retirement. Isabel did not note how many teachers she knew who had retired
specifically because of EES. The complexity of the change, in Isabel’s view, influence teachers’
decisions to stay in the profession. Research demonstrates that teachers with less than five years
of experience a greater influence of evaluation on their practice and are often less resistant to
change in evaluation policy (Delvaux et al., 2013; Kim & Youngs, 2016). This does not mean
that teachers with more experience are unaccepting of change, but rather that as teachers move
through different phases in their career they are more likely to perceive flaws in the education at
barriers to success (Huberman, 1989). The reactions of more veteran teachers as questioning of
the complexity of the system and the overall change aligns with this research. Furthermore,
teachers are often resistant to complex change when they are unsure whether or not they will
receive sufficient support to make the change (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
Challenges of simple change versus complex change. Fullan (2007) notes that while
simple change might be easier to implement, complex change can accomplish more in the long-
run even as it demands more effort. Grace spoke to this point specifically when asked if EES was
burdensome for teachers. She first commented on the size of the system,
I guess maybe if I had to reflect on the system as a whole, that it's almost too big. Maybe
if we all picked one piece to work on. If it were like here are three choices: work on your
student feedback, work on your classroom observation piece with Danielson, or work on
your student learning objective. Maybe if we chose one piece to really work on, and give
that evidence around our learning, I think that that might make it seem more doable.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 81

Grace further commented that if teachers want to move forward and improve their practice that
teachers should be open to trying a new way to improve, while continuing to acknowledge what
teachers might perceive as an overwhelmingly large and complex system.
She further commented,
I think if you look at it as an ongoing learning process, I think that yes, it's burdensome,
but it could have a potentially really incredible impact, if you continue to use those
practices. I will say, I feel that a lot of teachers feel like there's not enough time to really
do this with fidelity, and so [it would be good] if schools could figure out ways to help
teachers collaborate together to do this. And I think some schools have really done that.
The idea of “a potentially really incredible influence” was a strong statement aligning with
Fullan’s (2007) assertion that complex reform requires those participating understand the “big
picture” and how their work plays into the overall objectives of the change. Grace made a clear
connection between the big picture of educational reform efforts in Hawaii and teacher
evaluation. Teachers in this study noted other areas to which they thought resources should be
devoted, such as school materials or increased collaboration time between teachers and
administrators. Isabel commented:
I think they [HIDOE] should do a lot better than spending too much on admin. So, it's ...
yeah. I think it should go for students, straight to the students to be able to have
accessibility and resources to be able to do what they need to do, to learn. You know,
have access to computers, have access to a laptop, access to books, access to some of the
things they don't have.
It was a clear that teachers did not see the place of teacher evaluation in the bigger picture of
school reform. The perception of a disconnect between teacher evaluation and overall reform
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 82

efforts suggests that there was a varying degree of messaging to help teachers understand how
EES was connected to the overall objectives of reform efforts in Hawaii schools.
Practicality/Quality
Practicality considers the feasibility of policy implementation in terms of practical concerns
such as availability of materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007). Quality refers to the
attention paid to creating and persistently improving “proven” innovations (Fullan, 2007).
Themes that emerged in the area of practicality and quality include time, practicality for
administration, quality of system components, and unmeasured aspects of teaching.
Contrasting perceptions of time. Time was mentioned by all of the teachers in this
study as a factor influencing their perceptions of the practicality of the program. When asked
about resources provided by administration for the implementation of EES or their response to
participants calling EES burdensome all teachers mentioned time. Teachers discussed the amount
of time it takes to complete components of EES and the allocation of time to complete EES
components. Teachers demonstrated contrasting perceptions of time, six commenting there was
not enough time to complete EES and four commenting that time was a resource their site
administration provided them to complete EES. High school teachers in this study all come from
the same site, but exhibited contrasting perceptions of time in connection with EES.
Not enough time. When asked about areas that seemed burdensome, six teachers
responded that they did not feel like there was adequate time given to teachers to complete the
large volume of documentation required by EES. These teachers perceived EES as impractical
when considered through the lens of time required to complete the tasks. Claire, a middle school
teacher, noted that the possible benefits of the system are overshadowed by the amount of time it
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 83

takes to complete EES. She described her mindset about the amount of time EES took to
complete:
In truth, it [EES] has made me a very angry teacher, a very frustrated teacher, because I
feel it takes away from my classroom reaching. Because I'm doing all this freaking
paperwork when I could be prepping labs and lessons and improving my practice without
the burden of all this extra, time-consuming crap. 'Cause that's how I view it.
Claire did not see a connection between the work she was putting into EES and any improvement
in her practice. Doyle and Ponder (1977) note that teachers will do a cost/benefit analysis to
determine whether a policy is practical, Claire determined EES was not practical as the payoff
from EES was not equivalent to her time and effort. Elias, who teaches at the same site as Claire,
also noted that he was frustrated with a lack of time teachers had to “digest” the information that
teachers are given through EES. He felt like information is given to teachers in large quantities,
but time is not given for teachers to reflect and incorporate new ideas into their practice. He
noted:
Although we have the book, the manual, we have to have time to digest. When we have
PDs or meetings [about EES], we need to have a time that we can actually do practice,
maybe practice something in the PDs because when we're there, everything is just
presentation. We don't do anything. We just sit there.
The lack of time to process and then act on information negatively influenced teachers’
perceptions.
Four of the high school teachers shared the frustration that there was not enough time to
complete EES. Matt, a high school teacher, described EES as, “…cumbersome, confusing, and
very time consuming.” Matt viewed much of the time-consuming paperwork as disconnected
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 84

from the purpose of the evaluation process, to improve teaching practice. Robert, who works at
the same school site as Matt, said that the resources he hoped for were, “a little more direction
and maybe a little more time,” from his administrators. Robert noted that he was grateful to have
a department head who supported her department in completing work for EES and took some of
the burden off of individual teachers. The department head made sure that they used department
time to work together to set goals, analyze data, and work on Student Learning Objectives
(SLOs), rather than leaving teachers to complete all components of EES on their own. Sandra,
another high school teacher, identified the need for time in multiple situations. She discussed the
need for more time to collaborate, more time to talk to administrators about individual evaluation
results, and more time spent sharing evaluation trends with teachers. Sandra commented,
I think as far as it becoming effective, other things are more needed like having time to
collaborate with other teachers to compare notes, to have time for educators or
administration to assess thoughtfully and give constructive pointers. I think none of those
things have really had a chance to come about because there's never enough time or
funding to provide time.
Sandra circled back to this point four times during her interview. She asserted that EES had the
possibility of helping teachers improve their practice, but that supports, such as adequate time,
did not exist to ensure teachers and administrators were communicating and collaborating to
improve practice. Teachers evaluated the cost of time and energy spent on EES compared to
return on that investment as insignificant and therefore did not perceive EES as a practical
reform (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). Teachers desired more time to complete EES and collaborate
around their findings in order to have a more significant influence on classroom practice.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 85

Time as a resource. Time was not perceived as a barrier to successful implementation of
EES by all teachers. Teachers were asked about resources they were given to implement EES
and four mentioned time as a resource. Marie pushed back on the idea that EES is burdensome
and time-consuming. She reflected,
I would say that if it's something that you do throughout the year it's not burdensome, but
if it's something you do the night before your conference with your administrator, then it
is. Ideally, these are the things that we as educators should be doing throughout the year.
We should be reviewing student work, we should be reflecting, it's just putting all the
things we should be doing to paper. For some people, like I said, if you don't do it
throughout the year as it's meant to be done, and you just do it at the last minute, then it's
like a kid writing their paper. Of course, it's going to be a pain, but they had a month to
do it, they just chose to it the night before it's due.
Marie also noted that the most significant resource she has been given at her school site, a high
school, is time to work on elements of EES with their Professional Learning Community (PLC).
A Professional Learning Community is a group of teachers who teach the same content and work
together to plan and review student data. Time was perceived as a resource provided to these
teachers to complete EES requirements that in turn made EES feel less burdensome.
Carrie, a middle school teacher, expressed that while EES might be time-consuming, it is
part of the practice of being a teacher. She also noted that her school administrators give teachers
much of their allotted professional learning time to teachers to work on EES together. Grace,
another middle school teacher, talked about EES as part of job-embedded professional learning,
but did acknowledge that more time could be allotted by schools for teachers to collaborate
around EES to make more impactful on teachers’ practice. She commented,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 86

I think if you look at it as an ongoing learning process, I think that yes it's burdensome,
but it could have a potentially really incredible impact, if you continue to use those
practices. I will say, I feel that a lot of teachers feel like there's not enough time to really
do this with fidelity, and so if schools could figure out ways to help teachers collaborate
together to do this. And I think some schools have really done that, they've used that
student learning objectives as their team goal for a quarterly learning goal that the whole
team is working on, within a department.
Time, as Marie noted, is often perceived as a teacher’s most precious resource. These four
teachers contrasted with their colleagues in that when they did the cost analysis of the time and
effort required by EES they saw a positive influence on their practice and therefore found the
effort to be worthwhile (Doyle & Ponder, 1977).
Impractical for administrators. As teachers discussed the practicality of EES they
focused on the practicality for both teachers and administrators. Three teachers discussed the
practicality of EES for school administrators. Practicality was discussed in terms of time and the
quantity of teachers administrators were responsible for evaluating. The teachers who
commented on the practicality of EES for administrators are all high school teachers who teach
at the same school site. The high school has one principal and three vice principals who split the
responsibility for evaluating teachers. Marie noted that EES does keep administrators more
accountable for meeting evaluation deadlines than the previous system, but that the multitude of
tasks administrators are responsible for does still lend to, “…a lot of haphazardness and last
minuteness,” on the part of administrators. Matt noted that administrators were expected to add
EES to an already extensive list of responsibilities and thus EES has not been as impactful as it
could be. Matt commented,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 87

It comes down to practicality I believe. That is my opinion. It was the first go around, it
basically demonstrated the administration could not keep up with their end of the bargain
in terms of all the dates they had to pick and all the teachers they had to evaluate.
Obviously whoever was above them wasn't clearing their slate, so the superintendent
should have said "Hey, this is your focus, you're going to be on campus." We had a whole
slew of people get rated proficient, and p.s., some of them maybe should not have been
there because the administrators could not hit the deadlines. It could be great. But you've
got to screen off their time too.
Matt further commented on the lack of efficiency in the system, pointing to the vast amounts of
documentation that teachers were expected to produce as part of EES and that administrators, in
turn, were expected to read. He commented,
I feel for them a lot. We had to do this paperwork, but each of them had let's say 20 of us.
So in theory, they had a couple hundred pages to read through on top of their job. It isn't
happening.
Robert also noted that the size of the staff and the campus makes it difficult for administrators to
easily complete multiple observations for teachers. Each of these teachers expressed an
empathetic tone when discussing the challenge faced by administrators in the implementation of
EES. A lack of structural changes certainly influences the quality of feedback administrators
were able to provide, which meant teachers were not receiving specific feedback, which they
desired. The lack of structural change to accommodate the practicality for administrators
completing EES negatively influenced teachers’ perceptions of the practicality of EES.
Quality of system components. In order to understand teacher perceptions about the
quality of EES as a measure of teacher effectiveness, teachers were asked about the extent to
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 88

which each component of the system is a measure of teacher effectiveness to better understand
their perceptions of the quality of the system components. Teachers focused their discussion on
the quality of the Tripod Student Survey and the Student Learning Objectives as measures of
teacher effectiveness.
Tripod student survey. The Tripod Student Survey is a survey given to students once a
year, during the first trimester. The survey was initially given twice a year, but was reduced to
being given once a year. Teachers questioned the validity of the survey as a measure of teacher
effectiveness, but felt that it did give some useful information for teachers to consider in their
reflection. Isabel and Marie both commented that information gained about student perceptions
of teaching practice through the Tripod survey is valuable, but felt it should be given more than
once a year so teachers evaluate whether or not they have improved their practice in the eyes of
their students. They agreed that giving the survey multiple times a year would provide more
useful data and be a more quality measure of teacher effectiveness. Marie noted,
I liked it back when we gave the tripod reflection twice, once in the fall and once in the
spring, because you could see the growth in your student and in your relationship with
your students. Because when you give it in September, you've had them for a month,
they're still unsure of things and how your class works, but by April if we gave it again,
then I think that people's scores would be different. So you'd have that ability to compare
and contrast in your reflection.
Carrie and Grace both used the term “snapshot” when discussing the Tripod survey, noting that
the survey does not give a holistic picture of a student’s experience in a teacher’s class, but is a
good reflective piece for teachers. Carrie commented,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 89

I don't know if it's necessarily something that should have a teacher measure put to it, just
because that's a snapshot in time. That's how that kid's feeling at that very moment. If
they've had a bad day, and then they survey a teacher, it's going to be really hard to find
those positive moments. So, I don't know if that's the best measure. It's a good reflective
piece for a teacher, definitely, to look and see what they've said about you. And so, to
change or adapt your practices to that.
Robert agreed that the results of the Tripod often just measure the mood of the student that day.
Matt noted that, “It's a phenomenal source of feedback for the teacher. I think the effectiveness
side is having a good hard conversation with yourself.” He also noted the lack of consistency in
the time of the year the survey is given. Teachers overall perceived the survey as a good source
of information for teachers to consider in reflection, but did not perceive the Tripod Student
Survey as a quality measure of teacher effectiveness in the way it is currently implemented.
Student learning objectives. Six teachers discussed the quality of the SLOs as a measure
of teacher effectiveness. Teachers noted that the quality of the measure depends on how teachers
write and use the SLOs. Renee noted that the SLOs are a good measure of teacher effectiveness,
if teachers do not try to skew the data. Measures of student progress are teacher created and data
is self-reported. Renee shared that the SLOs measure teacher effectiveness:
Potentially really well, but I think it's still based on your own, how you make your groups
of students and how you think they're going to do and then depending on which
assessments you use, I feel like someone who's good at data could make their data look
really good even if there wasn't as much learning taking place. I think if teachers do it
ethically and they're really trying, then I think it can be really good, but I think if you're
just trying to make your data look good, then I think it could easily be skewed.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 90

Robert noted that the tracking of student data in the SLOs lends itself to productive
conversations with administration about improving teaching practice and the effectiveness of
strategies he is using in his classes. Matt noted that while the SLOs can be useful there are
challenges, he commented:
Here is the problem with that, if you're going to track that [student achievement data]
over the course of a year? How do you count for high rates of absentees? Or kids that
transfer in and out? How do you just get back down to the core of kids, because we can't
control our product unlike a factory or anything else. We can’t say, “I've got it from day
one to day one hundred, let's see how the progress works.” You can't do that. We don't
control our petri dish. It makes it hard when you start trying to track data on kids. What's
admissible, what's not admissible.
Marie stated that she did not feel the SLOs are a good indicator of teacher effectiveness. She
commented,
I don't feel that the SLO is as good of an indicator of teacher effectiveness because it's a
document that you create either independently or in your PLCs, your professional
learning community. It's not necessarily even reflective of your thought process as a
teacher, they could just be what your PLC says we're going to do. In that respect, yeah
the document is great and it sounds really good, but it doesn't necessarily say or show
how I'm going to impact student learning.
Marie did note that a multi-measure system, particularly coupling the observations with the
SLOs, did make the overall system more effective. The Student Learning Objectives were not
perceived as a quality measure of teacher effectiveness, particularly for experienced teachers or
when completed as part of a group.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 91

Unmeasured aspects of teaching. Teachers’ perceptions of the quality of EES was
connected to the elements of their practice and professional life that EES did not appear to take
into account when measuring teacher effectiveness. When asked about aspects of their job that
EES does not take into account teachers discussed the nuanced elements of teaching and outside
activities. Teachers felt that if EES did not take the nuanced elements of teaching and the
activities teachers took part in outside of their classrooms it did not give a full picture of teacher
effectiveness, influence their perception of EES as a quality measure of teacher effectiveness.
Nuanced elements of teaching. Three teachers discussed the nuanced nature of teaching,
aspects that they found would be difficult to measure in an evaluation, particularly when teachers
at the secondary level teach across a wide range of disciplines. Robert commented that using the
same evaluation system to evaluate all teachers fails to take into account the different priorities
of different subject areas,
I think it's hard because teaching is…not universal, but it's so many things involved in the
job, and a shop teacher is different than a science teacher, you know what I mean? And
so they might have different things that are important, or an English teacher would have
different things that are important to their subject than it would be for a math teacher, you
know? When you have a whole state of teachers to evaluate, it’s really hard.
It was clear that he was concerned about whether or not the same evaluation system could
adequately measure teacher effectiveness across disciplines. Matt commented on the artistic
nature of teaching, illustrated by understanding how to differentiate instruction for a wide variety
of student needs. Matt said, “Every kid you're actually differentiating instruction [for] when you
deal with them one on one. That's an art, it really is…I don't know how you evaluate that.” Claire
also mentioned the nuanced nature of decision-making in the classroom saying, “That's the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 92

magic and the wisdom that one teacher can help another teacher to have that, but it's something
that you can't necessarily read it in a book, and certainly it can't be correctly evaluated on the
EES.” Teachers expressed concern about how, or whether, evaluation systems that include only
one or two observations capture the nuanced moves experienced teachers make in the classroom
to meet the needs of all students. Teachers perceived a “one size fits all” model of evaluation,
such as EES, as inadequate to measure teacher effectiveness across disciplines.
Unrecognized activities outside of the classroom. Beyond the more nuanced elements of
teaching three teachers discussed work outside of regular classroom duties that in their view is
not acknowledged by EES. Claire commented on not receiving credit for being a National Board
Certified teacher on her evaluation,
If you compared me to a new teacher, what are some of the things that I can do, and I
know how to do, and I do with my kids that a new teacher doesn't know how to do
because they never taught before? You know? But then I'm just an equal drone, in the
eyes of the EES.
Isabel responded that awards she has won for creating a model physical education program do
not get counted as part of her EES overall score. She further noted that EES does not take into
account professional development opportunities that teachers pursue on their own. Elias felt that
EES does not take into account extra support and tutoring that teachers offer students after
school. These teachers felt that EES was not taking into account the ways in which they took on
professional learning and the commitments they made to their schools outside of their regular
teaching day. The lack of acknowledgment teachers felt they received for their efforts to support
students and the broader school community outside of the classroom negatively influence their
perception of EES as a quality measure of teacher effectiveness.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 93

Two teachers commented that the perception that EES ignores the way in which teacher
contribute to their school outside of the classroom is based on a lack of understanding about how
the system takes those activities into account. Marie felt that EES is inclusive of all parts of
teaching, she commented,
A lot of people would say, "Oh, I do all these different things. I sit on all these
committees and there's no rating for that," but that comes from your core professionalism
rating so I think that that's something that a lot of people either don't understand or don't
include them in that. It really comes down to like, on your resume, how do you flaunt
yourself? How do you show your abilities and your skills? It's the same with the EES.
You just have to figure out how do you put in all the things that you do in a way that can
positively impact you.
Grace also felt that EES takes into account all aspects of teaching, it just depends on teachers
knowing what to include in the Core Professionalism component. She commented that newer
teachers might not know how to include the extra duties they engage it or they might not know
what professional activities they can get involved in to boost the Core Professionalism
component. The lack of consensus or understanding around the Core Professionalism negatively
influences teachers’ perceptions of EES as a quality measure of teacher effectiveness that was
able to capture the breadth of work teachers engage in both in and out of the classroom.
Summary
The purpose of research question one was to understand how teacher perceptions of EES
aligned with Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of change; need, clarity, complexity, and
practicality/quality. Looking through the lens of need the data showed that teachers perceived
EES as meeting the need for an evaluation system with specific and clear expectation, but did not
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 94

meet the need for timely administrator feedback. Through the lens of clarity, teachers continued
to lack clarity on how the final effectiveness rating is calculated and this influence teacher
perceptions that although the EES elements appear more objective, the overall rating is quite
subjective. Through the complexity lens, teachers felt burdened by the amount of work EES
required and did not see it’s place within the broader school reform movement in Hawaii. A clear
connection was not made between broader reform efforts and changes to teacher evaluation,
therefore teacher evaluation was perceived as disconnected from more urgent needs. Finally,
through the practicality/quality lens there were three main findings. First, teachers perceived EES
as time-consuming, but differed on whether or not there was enough time given to complete EES
tasks. Second, teachers perceived EES as impractical for administrators. Finally, teachers
questioned the quality of the components used to evaluate teachers as accurate measures of
teacher effectiveness. In particular, teachers questioned the quality of Student Learning
Objectives (SLOs) and the Tripod Student Survey as a measure of teacher effectiveness. Overall,
teachers acknowledged a need for change in teacher evaluation, but questioned whether EES was
rolled out too fast with too many components to really influence teacher practice through the
provision of comprehensive and quality feedback. Teachers perceived the system as having
minimal influence on their practice and causing teachers to feel overly burdened.
Research Sub-Question 2: Teacher Support and the Characteristics of Change
Research sub question two asked, “How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new
evaluation policy align with these four characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity,
practicality)?” Research sub question two was designed to investigate teachers’ willingness to
support the Educator Effectiveness System through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 95

change: need, clarity, complexity, and practicality. This section outlines teacher’s willingness to
support EES viewed through the lens of each characteristic of change.
Need
Need focuses on the understanding that teachers hold about the need for the policy in
their local context (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Need as it relates to teacher
evaluation policy may include teacher’s perceptions of evaluation policy as useful and impactful
on their practice (Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Teachers in this study all noted ways in which an
element of EES influenced their practice and/or student outcomes. In considering teacher’s
willingness to support EES related to need the three themes emerged: the need for clear and
specific expectations, need for low stakes evaluation, and differing perspectives on the
prioritization of needs in schools
Formalized data reflection. As previously mentioned, teachers in this study expressed a
need for an evaluation system with clear and specific expectations for teachers. EES was
perceived as a system that provided clear and specific expectations and this influence teacher
support for EES in a positive way. Teachers specifically pointed to the elements of EES that
required formalized data reflection, both on students’ assessment data and student feedback
through the Tripod Student Survey. Six teachers in this study pointed to reflection as a critical
part of EES that was needed and influenced their support of EES. These teachers agreed that
informal reflection was a part of their practice before EES, but the data they received through
EES forced them to reflect in a structured way because they had to put their thinking down on
paper. Marie emphasized this point when she commented,
Educators say we always reflect. Driving home we reflect and blah, blah, blah, blah. But
to reflect and to be forced to put that to paper and to be forced to really reveal a part of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 96

yourself as an educator, I think is something that a lot of educators, as much as we like to
say that we reflect, we often kind of forget. I think that reflection, particularly on the
Tripod [student survey] evaluation, is super important.
The action of analyzing student data and writing down how that data connected to practice was
highly impactful for Marie. She further noted that even though teachers do not, in general, enjoy
being evaluated, the EES process forced teachers to become more reflective on their practice and
that was a positive element with a positive influence on teaching practice. Elias also noted the
influence of student feedback on his practice, commenting that it changed the way he conducted
assessments in his class. On the Tripod Student Survey he received feedback that his exams
covered too much information and that students did not have enough time to study for exams
properly. As a result of this feedback, Elias divided the content he was teaching into smaller
sections with “mini-assessments.” Changing the way in which he assessed students, based on
information gathered through the EES process, resulted in more successful outcomes for his
students. Elias felt that the feedback from students, gathered through the Tripod Student Survey,
is what influenced his practice most because he had never really considered the influence of his
assessment schedule on students. He needed that feedback to make a change and was willing to
change his practice. Feedback directly from students made teachers more willing to reflect on
their teaching practice and make changes.
Claire, a very vocal critic of EES, noted that achieving an acceptable rating was a
motivation for her to use reflection on student data to modify student interventions for students
who needed more support in. She commented,
I made sure that my kids all were successful or almost all were successful so that my
rating would be acceptable. I'd pull them in at lunch time if I needed to, I'd pull them in at
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 97

homeroom if I needed to, to get them some extra stuff, I was doing back flips. It was
difficult, but that's my job.
Although Claire was an outspoken critic of EES, she was willing to support the use of student
data collected as part of EES to improve student outcomes. She did note that the practice of using
data for instructional decision-making is something she would be willing to do even without
EES. Carrie, a teacher less critical of EES, also commented on how EES influenced her decision-
making,
Constantly keeping data about these students and their performance, and knowing what I
wanted the endpoint to be by such and such a date. And always kind of working in that
framework, to me that really does push you as a teacher to say okay, that didn't work, the
student still doesn't know this particular thing. What else am I gonna try, how do I know
that it might work? What problems am I gonna encounter?
The structure of EES and reflection on student data helped Carrie set clear goals for student
achievement and effectively measure progress towards those goals. Grace echoed that EES gave
her a structure to try new instructional practices and reflect on those practices which resulted in
improved outcomes for her students, which in her view should be the focus of all teachers. She
reflected, “… it really held my feet to the fire, in terms of struggling to implement and keeping
myself honest… it worked out really well for my students, it was an awesome class.” Grace felt
that EES provided a structure to try new strategies and deeply analyze her practice and the
progress of her students. Teachers perceived a need for the improved use of data and reflection to
improve their practice and supported the elements of EES that required these practices. The
support of the reflective practice built into EES is connected to the need teachers felt for clear
and specific expectations, which they felt EES provided. The work teachers completed with
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 98

student data and student feedback influence their goals and their reflective practice, all seen as
valuable and impactful on their practice. The cost, in time, of engaging in the data reflection
pieces of EES was perceived as impactful on instructional practices by teachers and their
willingness to support EES was influenced by this perception. Teachers’ willingness to support
the data reflection components of EES based on positive influence on instruction aligns with
Doyle and Ponder’s (1977) assertion that an analysis of cost and benefit influence teachers’
decisions whether or not to support change. Teachers believed that the time spent on data
reflection benefitted their practice in ways that made the time and energy devoted to the analysis
worth the effort.
Need for low stakes evaluation. All teachers in this study agreed that there is a need for
evaluation and that feedback is essential for growth. Teachers expressed that there was a need for
clear and specific expectation in this system, which in their view EES fulfilled. Teachers also
desired timely and specific feedback from administrators, which in their view EES did not fulfill.
In light of the lack of timely and specific feedback and follow-up provided through the EES
process, when asked about their willingness to participate in EES two teachers expressed that
their willingness to participate would increase if evaluation was not high stakes. High stakes was
defined as a system focused on hiring and firing teachers rather than helping teachers improve
their practice. Claire commented that when EES was first introduced that it was presented as a
“conversation” between administration and teachers, a way to give teachers targeted support and
feedback to improve their practice. She explained,
To me, there's a value in being observed, because then you learn something about how
you do when you work with the kids. But then I would say change it so that it's not this
super high stakes thing. And make it something that's a work in progress, because we
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 99

were told way back at the beginning that the evaluation system was supposed to be a
"conversation" between the administrator and the teacher. But it turns out that it's highly
punitive, because they can get rid of us in a couple years. We're done if we don't have the
high enough rating. So it's not just a conversation, you know?
Claire felt discouraged after teachers at her site were fired as a result of their EES ratings without
ever being given, in her view, adequate support to improve their practice. The feeling of
discouragement fueled her unwillingness to support the system even though she is contractually
required to participate. She expressed that if the system was less punitive, she would be more
willing to participate. Matt echoed these sentiments and noted that teachers need feedback on
specific areas of their practice,
You're not going to improve if nobody is looking over your shoulder. It is human nature I
believe, my opinion on that. Being able to have some specific areas is great because you
can focus in on...you don't really stop and look at them. That's fine. You have delivery,
certain types of delivery. You're doing content, is it rigor content or not rigor content.
Engagement, are the kids engaged. It’s [the Tripod Student Survey] actually a very good
tool. Kids are brutally honest. Let them do it. The kids need to have some voice on it. I'm
not so sure if you want it as a part of a hire and fire thing, but I think it needs to be part of
a discussion with whomever your supervisor is.
Matt was very open to feedback on his practice from his administrator and students, but
emphasized that it needed to be part of a process to support teacher growth and improvement, not
just a tool for hiring and firing. Teachers’ willingness to receive feedback was clear, but these
teachers did not support EES because their perception was that the objective of the system was to
punish teachers rather than to support teachers’ growth and instructional improvement. This
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 100

sentiment aligned with Donaldson and Papay’s (2012) finding that teacher buy-in and trust in
evaluation system is built when data is used to inform instructional coaching rather than
punishing teachers. EES was presented as a system that aimed at using feedback to support
teachers in growing as instructors, but it was not perceived in that way and thus teacher support
of EES was negatively influenced.
Differing perspectives on the prioritization of needs in schools. All teachers in this
study commented on the need for improved evaluation, but they also commented on the relative
importance of implementing a new evaluation system in comparison with other needs in schools.
This sentiment aligned with Fullan’s (2007) assertion that teachers create a hierarchy of needs
and their perceptions of policy are influenced by their view of the relative importance of the need
the policy addresses. When asked about the need for a new teacher evaluation system, three
teachers in this study spoke specifically to other needs in schools that should take priority over
changing teacher evaluation and this influence their support for EES. Teachers demonstrated a
reluctance to support EES as they discussed two types of need that, in their view, took priority
over evaluation policy. The first was school-based needs, such as material resources and
resources such as collaboration time. The second type of need was broader societal struggles that
influence schools that they viewed as needing to take priority over teacher evaluation
Prioritize school-based needs. School-based needs that teachers pointed to as more
important than new evaluation policy included resources to improve instruction, such as
materials and collaboration time. Two teachers commented on the amount of money spent on
people to work on the administrative end of EES that might be better spent on computers, books,
and other supplies students need. Collaboration time was another need that teachers mentioned.
Sandra mentioned that time is needed for teachers and administrators to meet and discuss
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 101

curriculum and pedagogy. Claire also mentioned that teachers needed to be “nurtured” with more
time for collaboration centered on strategies to meet the needs of students. She commented on
working with her peers to implement new curriculum:
We're working to try to figure something out so that we can help the kids without having
to teach to the test, 'cause we're not supposed to do that neither, right? But to improve. In
that way, it's more collaboration with my peers. That, to me, is the value of the EES that
doesn't exist yet. Because to me, if you want to keep your teachers, nurture them and help
them to get better. Provide them with the opportunities to collaborate with fellow teachers
in a safe way that's not punitive and that is truly like a professional learning community
rather than just mandated data-gathering and stuff like that. If you have the chance to
actually really think about how you deliver your curriculum and what is it that makes it
tick and work well, or what doesn't tick and work well, then there's some value to that, I
feel.
Claire acknowledged that EES was supposed to include a collaborative component, but did not
experience an emphasis on collaboration in the implementation process. Teachers viewed the
provision of resources and time as a more important need than reforming teacher evaluation
policy. The diversion of monetary resources towards materials and collaboration time was seen
as a greater need than resources spent on evaluation.
Prioritize societal needs. One teacher suggested that there were larger societal needed to
be addressed before school reforms, such as teacher evaluation reform, should be prioritized. She
noted that change in schools should not be solely the responsibility of teachers, but rather a more
holistic approach must take place.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 102

Society in general, including government, has to recognize that they can’t keep blasting
teachers and faulting education systems because our grandparents were well educated. I
don't think that's the issue. I don't think it's going to be corrected or improved through
observations, upon observations.
While she was the only one to voice this sentiment, the frustration that underpinned her comment
was impactful. She viewed teachers as carrying a burden for problems which they are not
responsible for creating and cannot alone fix. She added:
I think that if the purpose is truly to improve the teaching of teachers and the teaching of
our students, of our next generation, then back to my original statement that this whole
system needs to make more effort to improve. It is not upon teachers to improve it. It's
upon society to recognize that they need to change things and improve things so that it
becomes more fluid for improving education in general. It's like you know what, you're
going to drop a tiny little pebble into a pond, and you're going to get a little ripple, and
you're going to say, "Oh okay. That's all great." No, it's not going to be all great. If you
want to fix the pond and do things, then you need to do a holistic thing. You can't just
take one little parcel.
She expressed that evaluation and feedback was important, but that alone was not going to be
enough to improve academic outcomes for students. The sentiment was that if student outcomes
are going to be improved there needs to be a more holistic effort rather than putting the burden
on teachers alone. Sandra saw little need for changes to teacher evaluation policy if societal
issues were not being addressed to improve student outcomes. Sandra’s sentiments aligned with
Datnow’s (2000) finding that teachers may resent reform as they look at factors external to the
school as influence student performance and feel that policymakers are presuming teachers’
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 103

current efforts are not working. From Sandra’s perspective, it felt unfair to apply pressure on
teachers to fix societal problems outside of their control.
Clarity
Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the policy (Fullan,
2007). EES is defined by the Hawaii Department of Education as a “…comprehensive process to
evaluate teachers’ performance…to determine how to best target supports for teacher growth and
improvement,” (HIDOE, 2016, p.1). HIDOE states that EES supports teacher development by
clarifying expectation about what comprises successful teaching, providing regular feedback,
driving professional development opportunities, and facilitating collaboration (HIDOE, 2016).
Within the area of clarity, one central theme emerged that influenced teacher willingness to
support EES: lack of clarity about next steps.
Lack of clarity about the goals of change. Each teacher in this study exhibited a clear
understanding about least one of the purposes underpinning EES. Two teachers named
determining teacher effectiveness as the primary purpose of EES. Two teachers said creating
embedded professional learning was the primary purpose of EES. Five teachers said holding
teachers accountable for performance was the primary purpose of EES. Teachers did not discuss
facilitating collaboration as a purpose of EES, but did point to collaboration as a significant
element of EES, particularly in writing SLOs. Teacher understanding of the purposes of EES did
not influence their support of the program, but rather the lack of clarity about the difference
between EES and the prior system in terms of desired outcomes did influence teacher support of
EES. Teachers perceived EES as a lot more work with higher stakes with little change in levels
of support or feedback. This perception negatively influenced teacher support for EES. Claire
was highly skeptical that the primary purpose of EES is to improve teacher practice. She strongly
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 104

felt that a significant unstated goal of EES connected to accountability is to, “…hire and fire with
greater autonomy and easiness.” This finding aligns with Spillane et al.’s (2002) assertion that is
teachers do not understand the critical differences between previous and newly adopted policy
they will see the change as trivial and be less likely to support the change. Teacher support for
EES was negatively influenced by a lack of clarity about how the purpose and goals of the
system were different from the previous system.
The first purpose of EES that teachers pointed to was to determine teacher effectiveness.
Elias stated that EES helps gauge areas of strengths and weakness in teachers’ pedagogy and
knowledge. Four teachers noted that support is then provided through helping teachers gain a
better understanding of what teaching techniques and methods are effective. Grace noted that
while measuring teacher effectiveness was a component of the system, the real goal of EES is to
influence student achievement. Receiving feedback on their performance was a critical goal of
the system to these teachers, support was viewed as secondary.
A second purpose highlighted by teachers was embedded professional learning. Carrie
suggested that teacher learning takes place through reflection on the multiple data points teachers
receive as part of EES, including student surveys, student data connected to the Student Learning
Objectives (SLOs), and professional learning activities. Teacher reflection, in Carrie’s view,
takes place when teachers look at the data and consider their performance within the broader
education system. Grace agreed that teacher learning and improvements in instructional practice
are essential elements of the system, but noted that it is unclear whether or not EES is being
implemented with fidelity and in a way that genuinely informs teacher professional learning
opportunities. Sandra voiced with great emphasis that while a system for collecting data and
giving teachers feedback was created there seemed to be little action towards using that feedback
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 105

to improve teaching practice. The professional learning component of EES was an area that
teachers lacked clarity on how learning was taking place. Teachers experienced varying degrees
of support to improve their practice, so in reality teachers were receiving feedback with little to
no follow through with supports to grow in their practice. Teachers further expressed a lack of
clarity on how they might go about asking for supports based on the feedback they received.
A third purpose postulated by teachers was accountability for teachers. Robert noted that
with the implementation of EES teachers as a whole are held to a more specific standard of
performance, rather than just being able to do whatever they wanted to do. Marie agreed that the
primary purpose of EES is to create a standard of performance across the state, although she
added that it was highly depended on administrators upholding that standard at their school sites.
Providing teachers with a clear standard of performance was clear to these teachers. Two
teachers noted that a facet of accountability within the system was to get rid of teachers who are
not effective before they gain tenure status. Claire was highly skeptical that the primary purpose
of EES is to improve teacher practice. She strongly felt that a significant unstated goal of EES
connected to accountability is to, “…hire and fire with greater autonomy and easiness.” Teachers
held the perception that the primary purpose of the system was to ensure teachers were aware of
their performance and that there were consequences for not meeting the state measure of
effectiveness.
Unclear next steps. Teachers in this study expressed a lack of clarity about what next
steps were once data was gathered and a final effectiveness rating was assigned. According to the
EES manual, data should drive decision-making about what supports are offered to teachers so
they can “…become more effective,” (HIDOE, 2016). The manual further states that feedback
will be given multiple times each school year so teachers can engage in collegial discussions to
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 106

improve their practice (HIDOE, 2016). The teachers in this study lacked clarity on the purpose of
the data being collected because there was a lack of connection between data, feedback, and next
steps to help teachers improve their instructional practice. The lack of clarity teachers felt about
how EES was being used to support their practice made them less willing to support EES.
Lack of clarity in how to use feedback. Teachers lacked clarity on how the feedback
might be used to inform improvement of their practice. This feeling appeared to be influenced by
the quality of feedback received. Eight teachers in the study noted that formal feedback is only
given to them once or twice a year and usually at the end of the school year, which was not very
different from the previous system. Claire stated that when feedback was given it was punitive
and not as part of a conversation to help improve practice. The lack of support and follow-
through with feedback made Claire think that improvement is not the primary purpose of EES,
but rather an easier way of firing teachers is the purpose. Feedback gained a negative connotation
for her and negatively influenced her willingness to support the system.
The lack of follow-up on feedback to provide on-going support for practice was a
common thread through six of the teacher interviews. Matt commented that when his department
approached administration about next steps to move from effective to highly effective there was
a lack of feedback on how to make that happen. Carrie noted that, although she felt satisfied with
the amount of feedback she received, there was a seemingly perfunctory nature of evaluation at
other school sites. She commented,
It feels to me, at this point, that a lot of people are going through the motions of checking
the boxes to fulfill the system, and I don't think that's the intent of it at all. And so, is that
equitable? I'm not sure. Are some schools really doing it with fidelity, and really this is
an integrated process at their school, where they're really using this to help teachers
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 107

improve instructional outcomes in the classroom and determine whether or not teachers
need additional assistance in order to become really great classroom teachers? In my
mind, that's the purpose of the system. But in terms of is that what's actually happening…
Grace agreed that the feedback she received from her administrator was minimal and consisted
of little more than checking boxes and affirming that she was doing a good job. Sandra noted that
during the last year she did not receive any feedback. Elias shared a similar sentiment,
If we did it [the evaluation] at the end of the year, there's really no way we can ask for
any feedback because everybody's getting busy to end school, and usually the
administrators are so busy at the end filling out paperwork. So we feel kind of at a loss
when we get our thing about effective, highly effective thing. You have to schedule an
appointment, and they're usually very busy. I scheduled twice last year. I never actually
got in to see any of them.
Renee echoed that any follow-up on feedback from EES would have to be initiated by her, that
administrators would not initiate any follow-up. The lack of feedback that teachers received
negatively influenced their willingness to support the system, particularly when they viewed the
system as time intensive for in their view little payout.
Marie felt that she received more comprehensive feedback and follow-up from her
administrators. She commented that she received reflective questions based on her work and that
administrators were willing to support teachers interested in improving their knowledge and
skills through targeted trainings. This is significant because Marie teaches at the same school as
four of the teachers who felt they received minimal feedback and support. Marie serves on the
leadership team for her school, so it is possible that this role influenced her perspective. Carrie,
who teaches at a different site than any of the other teachers, also felt satisfied with the amount
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 108

of feedback she receives through EES, noting that she meets with her administrator several times
a year. Donaldson and Papay (2012) found that frequent observations and feedback were critical
to building trust and buy-in to teacher evaluation. Teachers participating in EES found feedback
to be infrequent with little follow-through and therefore levels of buy-in to the system were low.
Complexity
Complexity includes the extent, difficulty, and magnitude of change required by an
individual to implement policy (Fullan, 2007). Complexity can be measured in terms of a shift in
ideological mindset, change in teaching strategies, acquisition of new skills, and the use of new
materials (Fullan, 2007). The major theme that emerged related to complexity and teacher
willingness to support EES was an overwhelming number of system components.
Elimination of components. When asked about changes teachers would make to
improve teacher willingness to participated in EES four teachers mentioned the elimination of
components . The multiple components, all implemented at once, made the system feel
overwhelming and unfocused to teachers. Even five years after the initial implementation
teachers still pointed to simplification of the system, even if they had been streamlined, meaning
they did not have to complete the full breadth of EES for their annual evaluation. Matt used the
word “efficient” to describe his desired changes in the system. When asked about his willingness
to adopt the system he commented, “If it's the same format, you're kidding me, no way. That's
just a waste of my time. You've got to make it so it's efficient for both ends.” He felt that it was
unrealistic to expect teachers to fill out the large quantity of paperwork and at the same time
expect administrators to evaluate multiple teachers in a meaningful way. Teachers viewed the
system as too complex and time-consuming without having a significant influence on their
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 109

practice (Doyle & Ponder, 1977) and therefore were unsupportive of the system in its current
form.
Practicality and Quality
Practicality considers the feasibility of policy implementation in terms of practical
concerns such as availability of materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007). Quality
refers to the attention paid to creating and persistently improving “proven” innovations (Fullan,
2007). The major themes that emerged related to practicality and quality and teacher willingness
to support EES were differentiation, unacknowledged aspects of teaching, and inaccurate
measure of teacher effectiveness.
Desire for differentiation. The need for differentiation in teacher evaluation, by content
area and experience level, was a concern that four teachers voiced and that influence their
support of EES. Elias, a performing arts teacher, commented,
I don’t need all the sections of it, but I would like also to have something that
concentrates on performing arts, like outside the core classes…And schools won’t send
you on a performing arts pd. If you’re a core teacher, they’ll send you to things on the
mainland and things on Oahu, but here, you’re on your own if you’re in the performing
arts.
Renee noted that creating Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) might be helpful for novice
teachers, but for her, it influenced her practice minimally. She further noted that she needed more
support in how to analyze the mass quantities of data she had for her math students commenting,
“I want to look at their past history data points to figure out what group they’re in, but when you
start it’s overwhelming.” Claire also noted that the types of support that teachers needed, based
on evaluation feedback, was different depending on their teaching experience level. Teachers’
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 110

willingness to support EES was influenced by the lack of specific and targeted within EES to
support teacher growth and development. These teachers questioned whether a one-size fits all
approach to evaluation was valuable to their practice. EES was viewed as a mundane task
because it did not, in their view, give them enough actionable feedback specific to their practice.
Based on feedback after the first year of implementation, the HIDOE created a
“streamlined” evaluation track for teachers who scored effective as an overall final effectiveness
rating (HIDOE, 2015). Teacher on the “streamlined” track retain their final evaluation rating
from the previous school year and only need to complete reflection on the Tripod student survey
and MGP (HIDOE, 2017). Four teachers in this study discussed being streamlined. These
teachers viewed streamlining as a way to manage the overload of evaluation work that was
unmanageable to administrators rather than as a way to differentiate EES for teachers with
varying levels of experience and skill. In the view of these teachers, the streamline track was
much like Pep-T, the evaluation system in place before EES, in that it provides little feedback or
support to teachers. The lack of differentiation for teachers at different stages of their teaching
career made the teachers in this study, all with five or more years of teaching experience, less
supportive of the system. This finding aligned with Delvaux et al.’s (2013) finding that teachers
with less than five years of teaching experience a more significant influence of evaluation on
professional development.
Unacknowledged aspects. Teachers discussed aspects of their jobs they perceive as not
considered in their evaluation that connected to their perception of the quality of EES as an
evaluation system. Robert and Elias discussed the variation in pedagogy between teachers in
different content areas that are not considered with EES. Robert commented,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 111

…a shop teacher is different than a science teacher, you know what I mean? And so they
might have different things that are important, or an English teacher would have different
things that are important to their subject than it would be for a math teacher, you know?
When you have a whole state of teachers to evaluate, it's really hard…I think it's really
difficult and it's difficult for administrators to kind of follow a curriculum or something
to grade teachers with.
Isabel commented that she felt many of the tasks she takes on outside of the classroom are not
considered. She specifically pointed to awards her department has won and the improvements the
department has made in student achievement and outcomes. Elias also commented on work he
does outside of regular instructional time that is not taken into consideration. He shared,
They don't see the extra time I put in to become an effective teacher for all students. They
only see it when they come into the classroom. We teach after school, we tutor after
school, free of charge to the students of course just to get them to get caught up,
especially those lower-scoring children. We want them to be as much successful as the
other children in the class, so we put in a lot of extra time every day.
Claire commented that EES does not take into account National Board Certification. Claire and
Matt both commented on the nuanced elements of teaching that are challenging to evaluate, but
may in fact influence student progress from class to class. Claire noted, “…it's something that
you can't necessarily read it in a book, and certainly it can't be correctly evaluated on the EES.”
Matt added that the daily ways in which teachers differentiate instruction to meet the academic,
social, and emotional needs of students is not something that is considered or easily measured.
These five teachers demonstrated a passionate tone when discussing the aspects of their jobs that
they feel go unacknowledged when they are evaluated. The lack of acknowledgment, in their
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 112

view, of the extra work that teachers engage in outside of their classroom duties negatively
influenced their willingness to support EES.
Inaccurate measure of teacher effectiveness. A final aspect of quality that influenced
teachers’ willingness to support EES was their perceptions of EES as a quality measure of
teacher effectiveness. As previously discussed there were aspects of their job that teachers’
thought were not taken into account. Additionally, teachers questioned the saliency of the
elements included in the evaluation. A specific area that two teachers spoke to was the SLOs.
Teachers felt that the SLOs do not measure teacher effectiveness because all data is teacher
reported, assessments are teacher created, and teachers can choose what classes they focus on for
data reporting. Teachers expressed that it was easy to skew the data to show higher levels of
growth. In their view and experience, teachers would choose classes that would show higher
levels of achievement or create assessments with low levels of rigor to demonstrate higher levels
of achievement. Renee commented:
I feel like someone who's good at data could make their data look really good even if
there wasn't as much learning taking place. I think if teachers do it ethically and they're
really trying, then I think it can be really good, but I think if you're just trying to make
your data look good, then I think it could easily be skewed.
The ability of teachers to skew data made these teachers less willing to support EES as a valid
measure of teacher effectiveness and therefore influence their support of EES as a quality
measure of teacher effectiveness.
Time. As previously discussed six of the ten teachers in this study felt that EES
consumed more time than they were provided to complete the tasks. The volume of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 113

documentation was perceived as lacking connection to improving practice. Matt commented on
the large amount of paperwork that, in his view, lacks connection to the evaluation,
It’s an incredibly cumbersome, it's a confusing system. A lot of just meaningless fill in
the blank paperwork, paragraphs that are really not evaluative, but necessary to fill out
the blanks. Very time consuming for not a lot of evaluative stuff. It's hugely cumbersome.
Claire felt that if she was a new teacher the time consuming nature of EES would have made her
leave teaching,
If I was a new teacher now, with all the SLOs and the observations and stuff, the way that
it's structured, I think I would have gotten out of teaching, to be honest with you. I would
have gone to do something else. Because it's like, wow, these people have some
endurance.
These teachers did not believe that the cost of EES measured in time, was worth the benefits,
measured in terms of feedback and improved practice and therefore saw EES as impractical
(Doyle & Ponder, 1977). This cost/benefit analysis negatively influence teachers’ support of
EES. Teachers desired more payoff from the work they were being asked to engage in as part of
EES.
Summary
Research sub-question 2 sought to understand teacher willingness to support EES using
the lens of Fullan’s change framework, focusing on the characteristics of change. Teacher
support or opposition of EES was to various degrees and was focused more on specific elements
than the system as a whole. Teachers felt EES met the need for clearer and more specific
expectations and supported the elements of EES that required formalized reflection on specific
elements of their practice. A lack of clarity about the next steps after feedback was given and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 114

reflection was complete negatively influence teacher support of EES. Teachers felt burdened by
the amount of time required by EES and frustrated that there was a lack of follow-through on
support based on feedback, further influence decreased support of the system. Only one teacher
in this study felt that the entire system should be eliminated, all other teachers varied in their
support of various components. Nine of the teachers in this study supported the overall ideas
behind EES, but challenged how the system was implemented.
Research Sub-Question 3: Teacher Support and Local Characteristics
Research sub-question asked, “How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new
evaluation policy align with local characteristics?” When a new policy is enacted, the local social
conditions can also influence change in school systems (Fullan, 2007). Local characteristics that
can affect change include the school districts, school boards, the community, principals, and
teachers (Fullan, 2007). Research sub question three was the result of emergent themes in the
data. Throughout interviews teachers’ willingness to support the Educator Effectiveness System
was influenced by the district, school administration, and teaching colleagues. Teachers
discussed these local characteristics as a significant influence on their perceptions and support of
EES. Several themes emerged from the data: support in the process, administration messaging,
administrative preparedness to evaluate, and top-down reform.
Support in the process. Teachers discussed support they were either receiving or desired
through the EES process to make it more practical, applicable, and less burdensome. Teachers
discussed support they received from their teaching colleagues and school site administration.
Colleague support centered on collaboration around EES tasks. Administrator support centered
on resources such as time and information.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 115

Colleague support. Five teachers in this study discussed support from colleagues as a
critical element of EES. Matt pointed to the collegial nature of completing the Student Learning
Objectives and how teachers at his site worked on those with their PLCs. He commented that
splitting the burden worked out well, but that the burden of EES would have significantly
increased if he was required to complete the SLO on his own. Marie, Robert, Sandra, and Renee
all teach at the same site as Matt and noted that they also benefitted from being able to work
collaboratively to write the SLOs and look at student data. Robert shared,
We kind of did it as a collaborative kind of process, so there was somebody [in his PLC]
who was a total overachiever…so I was able to follow her template, and so from her
template I was able to put it together, and so maybe that's why it wasn't so burdensome
for me.
Sandra, who teaches in the technical education department, also commented on the support that
her department has provided in completing data analysis and improving instruction. She
commented,
We have our own department time that's been given to us to develop data points and
create certain kinds of curriculum to put together. Luckily, the department head is very
sharp and creative. We've created some nice forms and structures for implementing
instruction better. We've given some time on that.
These five high school teachers felt that EES became a more practical undertaking to complete
as a result of the ability to collaborate with their colleagues on tasks related to EES. Grace was
the only middle school teacher to discuss collaboration with colleagues as a support. She
commented that collaboration on EES is a practice more schools should adopt,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 116

If schools could figure out ways to help teachers collaborate together to do this. I think
some schools have really done that, they've used the student learning objectives as their
team goal for a quarterly learning goal that the whole team is working on, like within a
department. So for English, maybe they're working on persuasive writing, and they're
gonna use these indicators, and they all use that as their student learning objective. And
that way, they can do the data teaming, they can do the brainstorming, come up with
practices they could all use or some could use. I feel like that's been really effective.
Teacher collaboration is an objective of EES as a way to support improvements in teaching
practice (HIDOE, 2016). Collaboration with colleagues was the key for these teachers to feeling
less overwhelmed by EES. This finding aligns with research that asserts that collaboration is
critical to teacher growth and adaptability (Little, 1982). Teachers’ perceptions of change are
influenced by the collective sensemaking that is done in the workplace through both formal and
informal interactions (Coburn, 2001). Teachers in this study worked together to make sense of
change and this influence their perceptions of EES, making it feel less burdensome.
Administrative support. Teachers in this study were asked about their response to EES
being called burdensome and four of them connected the way teachers view the system to their
site administrators. Robert related that he does not feel burdened by EES because his
administrator prioritizes allotting time for grade-level teams to work on the Student Learning
Objectives (SLOs). He commented that how the system is administered at school sites,
specifically the expectations and support of site administration, is indicative of how teachers feel
about the burden of the system. The support of administration, through the provision of time to
collaborate during staff meetings, was critical to feeling less burdened by EES. Sandra, who
teaches at the same school site as Robert, described a different experience with administration
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 117

and EES. She expressed frustration with administration who, in her view, are absent from the
process and the classroom. Sandra described EES as “another laborious task” that teachers are
forced to engage in despite a lack of engagement from administration. In her view, it is critical
that administrators are regularly present in classrooms so they can give meaningful feedback.
Marie, who works at the same school site as Robert and Sandra, said that EES is not only
burdensome on teachers, but also on administrators who are tasked with sticking to strict
deadlines and making sure, “…that everybody was doing the same thing, at the same time, and
throughout the year.” Grace, who works at a different school site, commented that EES,
“…might be really burdensome, but I feel like if schools and teachers and admin are smart and
working together to come up with ways that they can use the system to help teachers become
better, I think it’s doable.” The support, or lack thereof, from administration was critical in the
eyes of these teachers to make EES feel feasible. The provision of time built-in to contract hours
was particularly valued and impactful on teacher willingness to support EES.
Teachers also mentioned their comfort level in approaching administration about EES to
gain feedback and support in their practice. The level of comfort teachers expressed about
approaching administration influenced their willingness to support EES. Isabel mentioned that
she had worked for the same administrator for over 20 years, this gave her a high level of
comfort in approaching her administrator about feedback and desired support. Matt, who also felt
comfortable approaching administration, commented that this is not the case for many teachers.
Matt felt that teachers were intimidated because there was often little interaction between
administration and teachers in their classrooms, leading to intimidating and sometimes
adversarial situations. He commented:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 118

Honestly, most teachers are pretty timid. In my experience, they don't like conflict at all
and it's kind of like the admin is almost like their teacher, which is kind of sad. They're
very reluctant to engage proactively on that. I think that goes back to management
techniques, if you go out and do a lot of observations and they're not punitive and it just
becomes ritual and routine, then you can have those conversations. If it's high pressure
once or twice a year, it's ugly. It's intimidating, it's adversarial. That's kind of what the
EES really formalized into.
The perceived approachability of administration connected with teacher willingness to
support EES. Isabel was illustrative of a teacher who felt a high level of comfort in approaching
her administrator having taught with the same administrator for over twenty years:
You know, I've been with my administrator for 27 years, he knows my strengths and he
and I talk occasionally or have meetings and I'll go to them and say, "I have a problem
with this, tell me how I need to take care of this."
Teachers who found their administration very approachable were more likely to support EES
than teachers who did not find their administration approachable. The high school teachers
support of EES appeared to be influenced more by their individual relationships and experiences
with their administrator.
Administration messaging. Messaging from administration, particularly when EES was
first implemented, was not an important factor in teacher willingness to support EES.
Administrator messaging was impactful on the amount of stress and worry teachers experienced
throughout the implementation of EES. There was a contrast between the middle school teachers
and high school teachers when it came to administration messaging. Two middle school teachers,
from the same site, experienced what they viewed as a punitive tone from the initial
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 119

implementation of EES. The punitive tone negatively influenced their support of EES. Elias
commented,
They [administrators] make it sound really negative. They're supposed to be helping us to
see what we can do to improve, but weeks before, every week they talk about it that if
you show this, you're going to get marginal or not as effective, and you could lose your
job. You shouldn't threaten the teachers, you should encourage them. So, all the teachers
get stressed out. They get so sick of it and they're so stressed they can't even come to
school.
Elias was frustrated with the punitive tone of his administration and the lack of support to
improve teaching practice. Claire recalled that when a representative from the district came to
introduce EES:
When she was talking to us as a full faculty, she told us that we were going to have to do
a lot of work and then she laughed. To me, it was like oh my god. That doesn't sound
good at all. It was like she was delighted that we were going to have to work our asses off
to be able to keep our jobs, basically.
The interaction influenced Claire’s lack of support for EES from the outset, she did not feel as
though teachers were going to be supported in their professional, but rather analyzed under a
microscope. The way in which leaders interpret policy and present policy to the staff influences
staff perception of policy (Coburn, 2005). These two middle school teachers were unsupportive
of EES and felt a sense of stress based on the tone set by their administrators around EES.
In contrast to these two middle school teachers, high school teachers experienced
administrator messaging in a less punitive tone which influenced the stress levels teachers felt
about EES, though not necessarily their willingness to support EES. Marie and Renee both
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 120

commented that their administrator emphasized that nobody’s job was going to be at risk during
the initial implementation as the system was still being figured out by all stakeholders. Renee
recalled:
Our admin was always really good and willing to work with us and not wanting to
penalize anyone before the system would work out. I think a lot of people had a more
negative experience than our school did because it was more of a big thing they had to
always worry about. I think our school's a lot more positive than other places because of
the way they approached it in a more balanced way.
The less threatening tone set by administrators helped teachers feel more at ease in the process,
but did not necessarily influence teacher support of EES. The majority of high school teachers
interviewed, five out of six, did not support EES in its current form.
Studies have found that teacher perceptions are influenced by how principals message
change, often more positive messaging leads to increased levels of buy-in and support (Coburn,
2005; Datnow, 2000; Delvaux et al., 2013; Little, 1982). The middle school teachers in this study
adopted perceptions towards EES that mirrored the way in which the system was messaged by
administrators and this influence their support of the system. Negative messaging focused on the
punitive elements of EES resulted in negative perceptions and lack of support amongst teachers.
In contrast, the high school teachers experienced more positive messaging focused on the support
teachers would be offered throughout the process resulting in more positive perceptions and buy-
in. It is interesting to note that in this study that the high school teachers, who all worked on the
same campus, overall showed a lack of support for EES even though the initial messaging they
received was focused on support rather than the punitive measures in EES.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 121

Administrator preparedness to evaluate. Five teachers also commented on
administrator readiness to evaluate teachers using EES. Teachers defined readiness in terms of
both content and pedagogical knowledge. Content knowledge included specific knowledge
related to the subject being taught. Pedagogical knowledge included knowledge about specific
methods of instruction to meet the needs of diverse students. Matt commented on being criticized
by his evaluator for pedagogical choices in a class he teaches of emerging English-speaking
students. The evaluator exhibited little knowledge of the class demographics and this influenced
Matt’s willingness to support EES or take feedback seriously. Sandra and Robert also discussed
the lack of time administration spends in classrooms, making their observations less meaningful
because administrators lacked contextualization of the classroom environment. The lack of
regular interactions between administrators, teachers, and students in the classroom made
teachers less willing to support EES.
Teachers also questioned the calibration of administrators in their implementation of
EES. Claire commented that she witnessed a vice principal use EES to fire a teacher, without
offering any support, at her site and discussed changes she would like to see implemented to
make EES more equal. Claire commented:
If you're going to really be fair, really, in essence, and it's going to be that high stakes,
there should be two people in the whole state that evaluate everybody. You know what I
mean? Those two people see everybody, that, to me, would be more fair because they
would see everybody. And it's the same two people. It's not whatever site administrator
you have.
Claire also suggested that peer observations with opportunities for feedback might be a more
meaningful way for teachers to receive input on teaching practice. Matt agreed that well-trained
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 122

evaluators would be an important addition to EES. Teachers’ perceptions that administrators lack
of preparedness to give them meaningful feedback and demonstrate knowledge related to both
content and pedagogy influenced their willingness to support EES. Research demonstrates that
the influence of teacher evaluation policy on teacher growth is influenced by the “will and
capacity” of leader to complete evaluations and provide instructional leadership based on
evaluation data (Kim & Youngs, 2016, p. 734). It was clear that teachers felt that administrators
lacked the capacity to meaningfully complete evaluation because support structures were not in
place for that to happen. Training of principals to ensure standardization of the evaluation
process is critical to successful implementation (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). Teachers, therefore,
felt less willing to support a system that lacked, in their view, adequately trained evaluators.
Top-down reform. The idea of top-down reform was discussed by five teachers when
discussing their willingness to support EES. Two of those teachers used the term “bureaucratic.”
Teachers perceptions of EES encompassed the feeling the state was mandating the new
evaluation policy without consideration of school level needs. Carrie commented:
If the system came from within the school, as like, “Hey we really need to improve
teachers looking at student work and or setting a goal for student achievement,” and then
learning how to influence that in their practice. I think that that would be a really
meaningful way to go about this. I think that having it [evaluation] be at the statewide
level and trying to have it look all the same, and having the computerized database
system and the calculation of whether or not you're highly effective, effective, marginal,
whatever. I feel like some teachers feel like they're mystified by how their score gets
calculated, or they don't agree with it.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 123

Teacher willingness to support EES was connected with feelings that it was merely another
policy from the state with little consideration for the needs or input of teachers. Claire felt
convinced that there was little thought behind policy in general, she reflected, “Having lived
through the different tangles and evolutions as things have changed, to me it's been proven out
that they're just winging it on the fly.” Claire was unwilling to support what she felt was another
short-sited policy from the state. Three teachers commented that the new policy added to the
bulkiness of staff at the state level, staff that in their view did not play a clear role in supporting
teachers or policy implementation. Sandra felt that EES was a good start to an effective
evaluation system, but remarked, “I just think that the problem with education, it has way too
many shadows floating around who are what they call resource teachers. I call them shadows,
because it's like what are they really doing?” Teachers felt a disconnect between their
experiences in their classrooms and what was happening at the state level. This finding aligns
with Datnow’s (2000) assertion that teachers are less likely to buy-in to change initiated at the
district level because they view the district as profoundly disconnected from the daily realities of
teaching. Although Hawaii did go through a year-long piloting process with EES that involved
working groups of teachers who gave feedback throughout the process, teachers continued to
view EES as a top-down mandate from the state in which teachers had little say. If teachers feel
like change is simply mandated rather than supported their perception of change is negatively
influence, the perception of district support in the process is key to teacher buy-in to change
(Bodilly, 1998; Datnow, 2000). This was certainly the perception amongst teachers in this study
who viewed EES as a top-heavy mandate in which there appeared to be significant support staff,
but support was not trickling down to the school sites.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 124

Summary
Research sub-question 3 sought to understand teacher support of EES using the lens of
Fullan’s educational change framework, focusing on the influence of local characteristics on
teacher perceptions. Teachers who perceived support in the evaluation process from colleagues
and/or administration viewed EES as less burdensome as those who did not perceive colleague
and/or administrative support. The perception that administrators demonstrated a lack of
preparedness to evaluate teachers using EES negatively influenced teacher support for EES.
Finally, teachers perceived EES as a top-down reform with little consideration for teacher input,
negatively influencing support for EES.
Conclusion
Fullan’s (2007) educational change framework provided a lens through which to
understand teacher perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness System in Hawaii. This chapter
described the findings organized by themes connected to each research question. The rich
description showed the complex and differing ways in which teachers perceived the system and
factors that influence varying degrees of support for the system. Only one teacher in the study
perceived the system so negatively that she felt that the system should be abandoned. The other
nine teachers found different elements that influence support of the system including clear and
specific expectations, structured reflection on practice, and opportunities to collaborate with
colleagues. Teachers’ negative perceptions were influenced by a lack of quality feedback and
instructional support based on feedback and a lack of clarity about how final effectiveness
ratings were calculated. Furthermore, teachers perceived administrators as often supportive but
insufficiently prepared to implement the program in ways that provided quality feedback and
instructional leadership. Teachers desired feedback and expressed support for an evaluation
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 125

system focused on supporting teaching in growing their practice, but perceived EES as falling
short in its capacity to influence instructional growth and change.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 126

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
The American education system is highly decentralized and primarily under the
jurisdiction of states, but the federal government influences local policy through the use of
funding mechanisms. In 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
the Obama Administration introduced the competitive grant program known as Race to the Top
(RTTT) to induce reform within state education systems. Hawaii was amongst the first group of
states awarded RTTT funding. In 2010 the Hawaii Department of Education was awarded $75
million to implement a comprehensive school reform plan, including a new multi-measure
teacher evaluation system known as the Educator Effectiveness System (EES). The new
evaluation system was fully implemented during the 2013-2014 school year.
The purpose of this study was to understand EES from the teacher perspective.
Understanding the teacher perspective can help leaders and policymakers understand challenges
teachers face with policy implementation and work to generate solutions to challenges (Tuytens
& Devos, 2009). Fullan’s (2007) educational change framework was used as a lens to understand
teacher perceptions of EES. Fullan (2007 outlines three categories of factors that influence
educational change (1) characteristics of change, (2) local characteristics, and (3) external
factors. This analysis focused on the first two categories; characteristics of change or innovation
and local characteristics. The four characteristics of change that influence implementation are (a)
need, (b) clarity, (c) complexity, and (d) practicality (Fullan, 2007). Need focuses on the
understanding that teacher hold about the need for the policy in their local context (Fullan, 2007;
Tuytens & Devos, 2009). Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the
policy (Fullan, 2007). Complexity looks at the extent to which individuals will need to change
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 127

(knowledge, skills, time, effort, etc.) to implement the policy (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos,
2009). Finally, practicality/quality considers the feasibility of policy implementation in terms of
practical concerns such as availability of materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007). In
his seminal work on the change process Fullan (2007) found these characteristics to affect
teachers’ implementation of change. Second, Fullan (2007) asserts that local characteristics such
as the district, principal, and teacher can also influence teacher perceptions of change.
This study used Fullan’s (2007) model to qualitatively understand teachers’ perceptions
of the EES. In doing so, this study adds to the collective knowledge about teacher perceptions of
evaluation policy and the factors that influence their support of evaluation policy. Specifically,
this study adds to the understanding of Hawaii teachers’ perceptions of the Educator
Effectiveness System. This chapter will summarize the findings of the study, suggest
implications for practice, and make recommendations for further research.
Discussion of Findings
The following themes emerged from the data, Table 2 summarizes the main findings for
each research question and connections to the literature.
Table 2
Research Questions, Findings, and Literature
Research Question Finding Literature
How do teachers’
perceptions of the Educator
Effectiveness system align
with the four characteristics
of change (need, clarity,
complexity, practicality)?

• Need for timely
feedback from
administrators
• Need for clear and
specific expectations
• Lack of clarity during
the initial
implementation
• Lack of clarity about the
final effectiveness rating
Avramidis & Norwich
(2002); Bradshaw (2002);
Danielson & McGreal
(2001); Datnow (2000);
Delvaux et al. (2013);
Donaldson & Papay (2012);
Doyle & Ponder (1977);
Fullan (2007); Hallinger,
Heck, & Murphy (2014);
Huberman (1989); Kaufman
et al. (2017); Kim &
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 128

• Negative influence on
veteran teachers
• Challenge of simple
change versus complex
change
• Contrasting perceptions
of time
• Impractical for
administrators
• Quality of system
components
• Unmeasured aspects of
teaching
Youngs (2016); Spillane,
Rieser, & Reimer (2002);
Tuytens & Devos (2014);
Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern,
& Keeling (2009)
How does a teacher’s
willingness to support the
new evaluation policy align
with these four
characteristics of change
(need, clarity, complexity,
practicality)?
• Need for clear and
specific expectations
• Need for low-stakes
evaluation
• Differing perspectives
on the prioritization of
needs in schools
• Lack of clarity about the
goals of change
• Unclear next steps
• Elimination of
components
• Desire for
differentiation
• Unacknowledged
aspects
• Inaccurate measure of
teacher effectiveness
• Time
Bradshaw (2002); Datnow
(2000); Delvaux et al.
(2013); Donaldson & Papay
(2012); Doyle & Ponder
(1977); Fullan (2007);
Huberman (1989); Kim &
Youngs (2016); Spillane,
Reiser, & Reimer (2002)
How does a teacher’s
willingness to support the
new evaluation policy align
with local characteristics
(district, principal, teacher)?

• Support in the process
• Administration
messaging
• Administrator
preparedness to evaluate
• Top-down reform
Coburn (2001); Coburn
(2005); Curtis (2012);
Datnow (2000); Delvaux et
al. (2013); Fullan (2007);
Kim & Youngs (2016);
Little (1982); Tuytens &
Devos (2009); Spillane,
Reiser, & Reimer (2002)

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 129

Research Sub-Question One: Teacher Perceptions of Change
Research sub-question one asked, “How do teachers perceive the four characteristics of
change (need, clarity, complexity, practicality) of the Educator Effectiveness System?” Research
sub-question one was designed to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the Educator Effectiveness
System through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of change. The following section will
summarize the significant findings connected to each of the characteristics of change; need,
clarity, complexity, and practicality/quality.
Need. Need focuses on the understanding that teachers hold about the need for the policy in
their local context (Fullan, 2007; Tuytens & Devos, 2009). When asked about the need for EES
to help improve teaching practice teachers expressed that there was a need for change in teacher
evaluation, but teachers did not agree that EES adequately fulfilled that need in the way it has
been implemented. Teachers expressed that with the previous system there was insufficient
feedback from administrators and an absence of clear and specific expectations. Research shows
that clear and explicit expectations increase teacher buy-in to evaluation (Bradshaw, 2002;
Donaldson & Papay, 2012). Danielson and McGreal (2000) assert that timely feedback is a
critical component in successful teacher evaluations systems. EES fulfilled the need for more
clear and specific expectations, but did not fulfill the need for more timely feedback from
administrators.
Clarity. Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the policy
(Fullan, 2007). In this study clarity explored teacher understanding of the elements of EES and
the program as a whole. Within the area of clarity, the following themes emerged: lack of clarity
during initial implementation and lack of clarity about the final effectiveness rating. Teachers
discussed what they perceived as a rushed implementation of EES that influenced their overall
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 130

understanding of the system from the beginning. Kaufman et al. (2017) found that a lack of
clarity about the elements of reform can influence teacher perceptions of reform policy. This
aligned with the finding of this study that a lack of clarity from the outset of implementation
influenced teachers’ overall perception of EES as too burdensome and confusing for teachers and
administrators. Teachers demonstrated improved clarity over time about the individual
components of EES, but continued to lack clarity about how the components connected to give
the final effectiveness rating. The lack of clarity about how the final effectiveness rating was
calculated made teachers feel that although the individual components of EES were more
objective, the system as a whole was quite subjective.
Complexity. Complexity includes the extent, difficulty, and magnitude of change required
by an individual to implement policy (Fullan, 2007). The implementation of EES represented a
shift in how teachers were evaluated in Hawaii and the evidence they were asked to provide to
demonstrate their effectiveness as a teacher. This study found that there was a perception that the
complexity of the system, the new requirements for how teachers had to demonstrate their
effectiveness, influenced some teachers’ choice to retire from teaching. Avramidis and Norwich
(2002) assert that teachers are often resistant to complex change when they feel unsure about
whether or not they will receive enough support to make that change successfully. In particular,
there was the perception that the amount of time that it would take to complete the requirements
of EES would be overly burdensome and not worth the effort. It is fair to say that teachers with
over five years of teaching experience have been influenced by change within the education
system and have formed opinions about whether or not sufficient support to implement change.
This does not mean that teachers with more experience are unaccepting of change, but rather that
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 131

as teachers move through different phases in their career they are more likely to perceive flaws in
the education at barriers to success (Huberman, 1989).
Practicality/Quality. Practicality considers the feasibility of policy implementation in terms
of practical concerns such as availability of materials, training, time, and support (Fullan, 2007).
Quality refers to the attention paid to creating and persistently improving “proven” innovations
(Fullan, 2007). Teachers exhibited contrasting perceptions of time and EES. Six teachers felt that
there was not enough time provided to complete EES and four teachers said they were given
enough time, their perceptions hinged on their perception of how school site administration
allocated time for EES. These teachers differed in the way that they evaluated the cost of time
and energy spent on EES in relation to return on that investment, which influenced their
perception of practicality (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). Teachers perceived EES as impractical for
administrators who, in their view, lacked structural supports such as time to regularly visit
classrooms and give more timely and comprehensive feedback to teachers. Teachers also
questioned the quality of the components within EES. Teachers noted that the Tripod survey was
only given once a year providing little insight into teacher effectiveness and the SLOs were often
worked on collaboratively and results were easy to skew because teachers chose what data to use
as a measurement of student progress. Furthermore, teachers felt frustration with the inability of
the system to measure more nuanced elements of teaching and the lack of accounting for
activities or commendations teachers received outside of the classroom.
Research Sub-Question 2: Teacher Support and the Characteristics of Change
Research sub question two asked, “How does a teacher’s willingness to support the new
evaluation policy align with these four characteristics of change (need, clarity, complexity,
practicality)?” Research sub question two was designed to investigate teachers’ willingness to
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 132

support the Educator Effectiveness System through the lens of Fullan’s (2007) characteristics of
change: need, clarity, complexity, and practicality. Only one teacher in this study felt that the
entire system should be eliminated, all other teachers varied in their support of various
components. Nine of the teachers in this study supported the overall ideas behind EES, but
challenged how the system was implemented. This section summarizes teacher’s willingness to
support EES viewed through the lens of each characteristic of change.
Need. Need as it relates to teacher evaluation policy may include teacher’s perceptions of
evaluation policy as useful and impactful on their practice (Tuytens & Devos, 2009). As
previously mentioned, teachers in this study expressed a need for an evaluation system with clear
and specific expectations for teachers. EES was perceived as a system that provided clear and
specific expectations and this influenced teacher support for EES in a positive way. Teachers
supported how EES prompted formalized data reflection, both on student assessment data and
student feedback through the Tripod Student Survey. Teachers felt that there was a lack of timely
feedback from administrators, a need that EES left unfulfilled. The lack of timely feedback
influenced the willingness of participants to support what they perceived as a high stakes
evaluation system with little support. Donaldson and Papay (2012) found that teacher buy-in and
trust in an evaluation system is strengthened when data is used to provide instructional coaching
rather than serve a punitive function. EES was presented as a system that aimed at using
feedback to support teachers in growing as instructors, but it was not perceived in that way and
thus teacher support of EES was negatively influenced. Finally, teachers prioritized needs
differently than they perceived how the Hawaii Department of Education prioritized needs in
schools. Teachers pointed to the need for material resources and collaboration time as more
critical investments than revamping teacher evaluation. One teacher expressed that teachers
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 133

should not be burdened with fixing broader societal problems and that teacher evaluation would
do little to influence broader issues. Datnow (2000) asserted that teachers might resent reform
when they perceive broader societal factors are influencing student achievement and feel that
outside stakeholders assume teachers are not working hard enough.
Clarity. Clarity relates to a basic understanding of the elements and goals of the policy
(Fullan, 2007). Teachers in this study expressed a lack of clarity about the goals of EES and the
next steps to be taken after feedback was received. Teachers did not perceive the goals of EES as
fundamentally different than any other evaluation system they experienced. EES asserts four
goals as part of its focus on supporting teacher development, (1) clarifying expectation about
what comprises successful teaching, (2) providing regular feedback, (3) driving professional
development opportunities, and (4) facilitating collaboration (HIDOE, 2016). All teachers
expressed at least one of these goals as the goal of EES, but did not view the system as
supporting teacher development. Therefore, teachers expressed a lack of clarity about how the
outcomes of this system were different from the prior system. The feeling that EES was more
work with the same objectives decreased teacher support of EES. Research shows that if teachers
do not understand the critical differences between previous and newly adopted policy they will
see the change as trivial and be less likely to support the change (Spillane et al., 2002). Teachers
did not experience increased levels of feedback or support that are key to teacher buy-in and
therefore felt that in many ways EES as a more time-consuming version of evaluation systems of
the past (Donaldson & Papay, 2012).
Complexity. Complexity includes the extent, difficulty, and magnitude of change
required by an individual to implement policy (Fullan, 2007). The multiple components within
EES represented a drastic shift in evaluation requirements for teachers. Teachers expressed
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 134

feeling overwhelmed by the amount of data they were asked to track and the paperwork the
system entailed. Teachers viewed the costs of the system far outweighed the benefits (Doyle &
Ponder, 1977) and this negatively influenced their support of EES.
Practicality and Quality. Practicality considers the feasibility of policy implementation
in terms of practical concerns such as availability of materials, training, time, and support
(Fullan, 2007). Quality refers to the attention paid to creating and persistently improving
“proven” innovations (Fullan, 2007). Teacher support for EES was influenced by one measure
of practicality, the time required by EES. Six teachers desired more time allocated to complete
EES related tasks. Teacher support for EES was influenced by three factors related to quality: a
desire for differentiation, unacknowledged aspects of teaching, and inaccuracy as a measure of
teacher effectiveness. Teachers spoke to the need for differentiation in evaluation by both content
area and experience level. Teachers believed that particularly within secondary education critical
components of instruction differed depending on the content area. Teachers also felt that
experienced teachers needed different levels of support than novice teachers and therefore did
not feel that a “one-size fits all” model of evaluation was beneficial. Delvaux et al. (2013) found
that teachers with less than five years of teaching experience a more significant influence of
evaluation on professional development, perhaps suggesting that a different model of evaluation
would benefit experienced teachers. Teachers also desired a system that acknowledged the work
and commendations they received outside of their classroom responsibilities.
Research Sub-Question 3: Teacher Support and Local Characteristics
Research sub-question asked, “How does a teacher’s willingness to support new
evaluation policy align with local characteristics?” Local characteristics that can affect change
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 135

include the school districts, school boards, the community, principals, and teachers (Fullan,
2007).
Support in the process. Teachers in this study discussed support they received in the
process of implementation from both colleagues and administrators. Teachers’ perceptions of
change are influenced by the collective sensemaking that is done in the workplace through both
formal and informal interactions with colleagues (Coburn, 2001). Teachers in this study were
influenced by the levels of support they received from both colleagues and administrators in the
implementation process. Interestingly, support in the process influenced the level of burden and
clarity teachers felt through the EES process, but not necessarily the level of support they had for
the system. The role of the administrator in shaping teacher perceptions and support level of EES
was also evident in this study. Research demonstrates that school leaders influence teacher
perceptions of change through the ways they interpret and message policy to staff (Coburn,
2005; Datnow, 2000; Delvaux et al., 2013; Little, 1982). Teachers in this study were influenced
by the messaging administrators engaged in when EES was first implemented. Administrators
who emphasized the punitive nature of EES increased the level of burden teachers felt about
participating in the evaluation process. Conversely, administrators who emphasized a tone of
collaboration decreased the level of burden teachers felt during the implementation process.
Interestingly while teachers may have experienced more positive messaging around EES and felt
less burdened by the process, this did not necessarily influence their level of support for EES.
Administrator preparedness to evaluate. Kim and Youngs (2016) asserted that the
success of evaluation policy to influence teacher practice often hinges on of the “will and
capacity” of administrators to assume the role of instructional leader (p. 734). Teachers in this
study questioned administrator preparedness to adequately implement EES, both in judging
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 136

teacher performance and implementing the system with fidelity. Teachers expressed that there
appeared to be a lack of calibration amongst administrators when it came to rating teachers. The
perception of a level of subjectivity in assigning final effectiveness ratings negatively influenced
teacher support of EES. Donaldson and Papay (2012) asserted that continued support and
training of principals is critical to the fidelity and success of implementation. This study did not
investigate the principal perspective on EES, including their perceptions of preparedness to
evaluate teachers using EES, but teacher perceptions were that principals were not adequately
prepared to engage in this task.
Top-down reform. Teacher support for change is negatively influenced when change is
perceived as a top-down mandate (Bodilly, 1998; Datnow, 2000b). Change that is initiated from
outside of the school is often met with resistance because teachers view district leaders or
policymakers as too far disconnected from the daily realities of the classroom (Datnow, 2000).
Perceptions of EES held by teachers in this study aligned with these findings. Teachers felt that
the leaders making decisions at the district level were too far removed from the schools to really
understand what support teachers needed. Furthermore, teachers viewed the district as top-heavy
with an abundance of staff to support EES, but teachers experienced little support from the
district. When teachers perceive change as mandates from the district with little support to
implement change there are lower levels of buy-in (Datnow, 2000).
Implications for Practice
Within this study nine of the ten teachers thought EES was an improvement from the
previous evaluation system and advocated for making improvements for EES rather than simply
discarding the system as a whole. This study took place over a limited time period with a
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 137

relatively small sample of teachers, but there are several implications that EES stakeholders
might consider as the system evolves.
First, feedback through EES was primarily perceived as summative. Teachers expressed a
desire for more frequent feedback, therefore an implication is to investigate ways in which
teachers might receive increased formative feedback and support. This would address teachers’
desire for more timely feedback, increased instructional support, and a more low-stakes
evaluation environment. District and school leaders might discuss approaches to increase the
amount of formative feedback teachers are given. Avenues might include, more time given to
administrators to engage in evaluation activities, re-implementation of the Tripod survey at
multiple points through the year, peer observations, or observations by instructional coaches. A
higher frequency of observational feedback increases teacher buy-in and trust in evaluations
systems (Donaldson & Papay, 2012). Increased levels of formative feedback and accompanying
support could help to build teacher trust and buy-in to the evaluation process.
Second, teachers expressed a lack of clarity about how the final effectiveness rating was
calculated. This negatively influenced teacher perceptions and support of EES. Teachers felt that
administrators could not give clear answers around how they might improve their practice to
achieve a higher rating. Therefore, an implication is to clarify the rating process. Teachers
perceived the elements of EES as primarily objective, but the final rating as subjective. The
desire for clarity around the final effectiveness rating aligned with the desire for more timely and
specific feedback. Increasing the clarity around how the final effectiveness rating is calculated
and how teachers can improve their rating would likely increase teacher buy-in and trust in the
evaluation process.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 138

Third, a significant barrier to increased levels of feedback and support was administrator
readiness to engage in the evaluation process. Teachers did not feel that administrators had the
time or instructional knowledge to give them either timely or specific feedback. An implication
is to build administrator capacity to be instructional leaders. Research has demonstrated that
building the capacity of school site administrators to be instructional leaders is critical in the
success and long-term sustainability of evaluation systems (Curtis, 2012). The district should
analyze ways in which school site administrators are trained and supported as evaluators and
instructional leaders. Through this analysis, the district might better understand how to support
leaders who are required to differentiate support for teachers across both content and experience
levels. The district might also consider if the structural supports are in place to support school
leaders in the evaluation process. Structural supports would include the volume of tasks required
of school site administrators and the consideration of whether support staff should exist on
campuses to support schools’ evaluative capacity. Capacity building amongst school leaders is
critical to the sustainability of EES.
Recommendations for Research
This study examined EES through conversations with teachers about their perceptions of
EES through Fullan’s (2007) lens of educational change. Teachers are only one group of
stakeholders in the evaluation process leaving room for other areas of research to be pursued.
School site administrators are primarily responsible for the implementation of EES because their
job entails evaluating teacher performance. An investigation into the administrator perspective
on EES would provide valuable insight into the challenges they face in implementing the system
and lead to meaningful conversations about supports for administrators. Another area of interest
on which research might focus the outcomes of EES. Specifically, investigating student
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 139

outcomes since the implementation of EES. Improved student outcomes is the overarching goal
of educational change and reform; therefore it is essential to understand the influence of reform
measures on student progress. Both of these areas of research would help to provide a more
holistic picture of EES.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to give voice to the teacher perspective on the
implementation of evaluation policy in Hawaii. Understanding the teacher perspective is critical
to addressing challenges and ultimately ensuring the long-term sustainability of policy (Tuytens
& Devos, 2009). The significant investment of both financial and human capital into reform
efforts necessitates an understanding of the perspectives of all stakeholders to ensure successful
implementation. Teachers in this study supported a change in evaluation methods, but questioned
how EES was implemented. EES was presented to teachers as a broad support system to help
teachers grow in their practice, but in reality teachers felt overburdened by the workload required
by the system and frustrated by the lack of feedback they received in return. Teachers are all too
often treated as “objects of reform” rather than “agents of change” which influences their
willingness to support change (Datnow & Park, 2009). The teacher voice is critical to the success
of reform policy and needs to be regularly included in the conversation to ensure the shared
outcome of educational change, improved outcomes for students. EES was perceived as having
the potential to truly influence teacher practice, it is hoped that leaders will listen to the teacher
voice and address the concerns of and challenges faced by teachers to ensure that the system is
achieving its intended goal of supporting teacher growth and improvement.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 140

References
Accomplished California Teachers. (2010). A quality teacher in every classroom: Creating a
teacher evaluation system that works for California. Stanford, CA: National Board
Resource Center, Stanford University. Retrieved from
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/quality-teacher-every-
classroom-evaluation-system-works-california.pdf
Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional
development on Greek teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 22(4), 367-389.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.
Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance:
Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational
Researcher, 44(2), 77-86.
Berends, M., Kirby, S.N., Naftel, S., and McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance
in new American schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1145.html.
Bodilly, S. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing
designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR942.html
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 141

Bradshaw, L. K. (2002). Local district implementation of state mandated teacher evaluation
policies and procedures: The north carolina case. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 16(2), 113-127. doi:10.1023/A:1020000328622
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145
Coburn, C. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading
policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509. doi:10.1177/089504805276143
Cohen, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). Observations on evaluating teacher performance: Assessing
the strengths and weaknesses of classroom observations and value-added measures. In J.
Grissom & P. Youngs (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of
multiple measures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches
(4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Curtis, R. (2012). Building it together: The design and implementation of Hillsborough
County public schools’ teacher evaluation system. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum
for emergent literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 31-54.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: To Enhance Professional Practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 142

Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Datnow, A. (2000). Power and Politics in the Adoption of School Reform Models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Largescale reform in an
era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education
policy research. New York: Routledge Publishers.
Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013).
How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel
analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.011
Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. (2012) Reforming teacher evaluation: One
district’s story. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539748.pdf
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision making.
Interchange, 8, 1–12.
Elmore, R. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented as the OECD
Conference on Improving Leadership, London.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers
College, Colombia University.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the
implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’
perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130-166.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 143

Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Qualitative research kit: Analyzing qualitative data. London, England:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Goals 2000: Educate American Act, H.R. 1804, 103d Cong. (1994).
Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, M. C., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015).
Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of
teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96-104.
Goldstein, D. (2014). The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession. New
York: Doubleday.
Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement:
An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability,
26(1), 1-24. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., Marsh, J., McCombs, J., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., & Barney,
H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of
teachers and administrators in three states. RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States:
History, research, and future directions. RAND Corporation: Washington D.C.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press
Harris, D. (2009). Teacher value-added: Don’t end the search before it starts. Journal of Policy
and Management, 28(4), 693-699.
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2017). Educator Effectiveness System Manual for
Evaluators and Participants. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 144

Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Educator%20Effectivness/EESMan
ual.pdf
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2016). Board approves policy change in teacher
evaluation [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/B
OE-approves-policy-changes.aspx
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2015). Improved Educator Effectiveness System praised
[Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/I
mproved-Educator-Effectiveness-System-Praised.aspx
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2014). Educator Effectiveness System survey gathers
teacher feedback [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/E
ducator-Effectiveness-System-survey-gathers-teacher-feedback.aspx
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1),
31.
Hunter, M. (1988). Effecting a reconciliation between supervision and evaluation—A reply to
Popham. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 275-279.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Sampling. In Educational Research (pp. 247-246).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kaufman, J. H., Wang, E.L., Hamilton, L., Thompson, L.E., & Hunter, G. (2017). U.S. teachers'
support of their state standards and assessments: Findings from the American Teacher
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 145

Panel. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2136.html.
Kim, J., & Youngs, P. (2016) Promoting instructional improvement or resistance? A comparative
study of teachers’ perceptions of teacher evaluation policy in Korea and the USA.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 723-744.
DOI:10.1080/03057925.2015.1057478
Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators’
productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 752-777.
Le Floch, K., Zhang, Y., Kurki, A., & Herrmann, S. (2006). Selecting a CSR model: Quality and
implications of the model adoption process. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 11(3-4), 239-253.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school
success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Luna, C., & Turner, C. L. (2001). The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-stakes
testing. The English Journal, 91(1), 79-87.
Mangiante, E. (2010). Teacher matter: measures of teacher effectiveness in low-income
minority schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23, 41- 63.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
McCaffrey, J., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2003). Evaluating value-added
models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved
from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG158.html
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 146

Mehta, J. (2013). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the
twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463-486.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
New York State Department of Education (NYSDE). (2009). Federal education policy and the
states, 1945-2009: A brief synopsis. Albany: New York State Archives. Retrieved from
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/common/archives/files/ed_background_overview_essay.p
df
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2002).
Odongo, G., & Davidson, R. (2016). Examining the attitudes and concerns of the Kenyan
teachers toward the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education
classroom: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Special Education, 31(2),
209-227.
Papay, J. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher
evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123-141.
Popham, W. J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 269-273.
Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010,
74 Fed. Reg. 59837 (November 18, 2009)
Rakap, S., & Kaczmarek L. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in Turkey. European
Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 60-75.
Ravitch, Diane. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. Basic Books:
New York.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 147

Reid, M. (2014). Ethic of practicality analysis of successful group curriculum planning by
teachers. Interchange, 45(1), 75-84.
Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in education production: Tracking, decay, and student
achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175-214.
Scruggs, Thomas E., & Mastropieri, Margo A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1),
59-74.
Smith, M. S., and O'Day, J. (1991). "Systemic School Reform." In S. H. Fuhrman and B. Malen
(eds.) The Politics of Curriculum and Testing, pp. 233-267. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the
reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72, 387–431.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Stronge, J. H. (2006). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational
landscape. In J.H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and
best practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education.
Education Sector Reports. Washington D.C.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 148

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2009). Teachers' perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A
validity study of the policy characteristics scale. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(6), 924930. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.014
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 509-530.
van den Berg, R., Vandenberghe, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). Management of innovations from a
cultural-individual perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(3),
321-351.
Van der Vegt, R., Smyth, L. F., & Vandenberghe, R. (2001). Implementing educational policy at
the school level. Organization, dynamics and teacher concerns. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39, 8–23.
United States Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002).
No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington. D.C. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf
United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2009). Race to the top program executive
summary. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
Van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of
teachers during educational innovation: a concerns-based approach. American
Educational Research Journal, 36, 879–906.
Ward, J., Center, Y. and Bochner, S. (1994). A question of attitudes: Integrating children with
disabilities into regular classrooms. British Journal of Special Education, 21, 34–39.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 149

Weiner, B.J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation
Science, 4(1), 67.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on teacher differences. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher
Project.
Winkler, A. M., Scull, J., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2012). How strong are U.S. teacher unions?.
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Designs and methods (5
th
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Youngs, P. & Grissom, J. (2016). Multiple measure in teacher evaluation: Lessons learned and
guidelines for practice. In J. Grissom & P. Youngs (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation
systems: Making the most of multiple measures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 150

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Hello, my name is Lisa Christensen and I am conducting research on how teachers
perceive the Educator Effectiveness System. My goal is to give voice to the teacher perspective
on evaluation policy and its outcomes. Thank you for agreeing to talk to me about your
experience with teacher evaluation in Hawaii. This interview will include questions about how
you perceive the Educator Effectiveness System and should take about 45 minutes. If it is okay
with you, this interview will be audio taped so that I can accurately reflect what is discussed.
There are no right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, answers, I am simply trying to capture
your thoughts and perspective on the Educator Effectiveness System. All of your responses are
confidential and you are welcome to not answer any questions you do not want to answer. Do
you have any questions before we begin?

Research Question Interview Question
How to teachers in Hawaii
perceive the Educator
Effectiveness System?
Describe your experience with the Educator Effectiveness
System.
• When did you first experience the system?
• What evaluation track are you on for the 2016-2017
school year?

What was it like for you when you were first introduced to
the Educator Effectiveness System? COMPLEXITY

Have you worked under any other evaluations system?
• What was the name of the system?
• How long were you evaluated under that system?
• Hope do you feel that system compares to the
Educator Effectiveness System?

Are you finding your experience with the Educator
Effectiveness System different than you expected? In what
ways? PRACTICALITY/QUALITY

In your view, what is the purpose of the Educator
Effectiveness System?
• To what extent is the evaluation system fair?
• To what extent is the evaluation system
transparent?
• To what extent is the evaluation system equitable?

Describe the goals of the Educator Effectiveness System.
• How did you learn about the goals of the system?
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 151

• To what extent are the goals of the policy clear to
you?

How do teachers’ perceptions of
the Educator Effectiveness system
align with the four characteristics
of change (need, clarity,
complexity, practicality)?

How does a teacher’s willingness
to support the new evaluation
policy align with local
characteristics (district, principal,
teacher)?
NEED (Is this policy needed in my local context?)

Suppose a policymaker or administrator asked you about
your perspective on the Educator Effectiveness System.
What would you say about the need for the Educator
Effectiveness System to help you improve your practice?
• Did a new system need to be put in place?
• To what extent do you see the need for creating
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) to help you
improve your practice?
• To what extent do you see the need for the Core
Professionalism component (reflection on Tripod
Student Survey/Hawaii Growth Model/Professional
Development Plan) to help you improve your
practice?
• To what extent do you see the need for classroom
observations to help you improve your practice?

CLARITY (Are the elements of the policy clear? Do I
understand the goals of the policy?)

Describe your understanding of the overall effectiveness
rating.
• What do teachers need to demonstrate in order to
be rated as effective or highly effective?
• What do teachers need to demonstrate in order to
be rated as marginal or unsatisfactory?

There are currently multiple components within the
Educator Effectiveness System used to evaluate teachers
(Student Learning Objectives, Core Professionalism,
Classroom Observations). How well do you feel you
understand the components that are being used for your
evaluations?
• Describe the Student Learning Objectives
component.
• Describe the Core Professionalism (Tripod Student
Survey & Hawaii Growth Model) component.
• Describe the Classroom Observation component
(Danielson’s Framework for Teaching).

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 152

What are your perceptions of each component of the
Educator Effectiveness System (Student Learning
Objectives, Core Professionalism, Classroom
Observations) as a measure of teacher effectiveness?
• To what extent do you think creating Student
Learning Objectives (SLOs) measures teacher
effectiveness?
• To what extent do you think the Core
Professionalism component (Tripod Student Survey
& Hawaii Growth Model) measures teacher
effectiveness?
• To what extent do you think the Classroom
Observation component (Danielson’s Framework
for Teaching) measures teacher effectiveness?

Describe any components of the system that are still
unclear to you.

COMPLEXITY (How much effort is and change is
required of me to adopt this policy?)

Some people have described components of the Educator
Effectiveness System as unnecessarily burdensome on
teachers. What would you say to them?

What changes, if any, have you made to your teaching
practice in connection to the Educator Effectiveness
System?
• Changes in planning?
• Changes in pedagogy?
• Changes in assessment?

PRACTICALITY/QUALITY (Do I have adequate
support (materials, training, time, etc.) to properly
implement this policy?)

Describe any resources (materials/time) and/or
professional development that you have been provided in
relation to the Educator Evaluation System.
• Who has provided the resources (materials/time)
and how often?
• Who has provided the professional development
and how often?

Describe the kind and frequency of feedback you are
provided through the Educator Effectiveness System.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 153

• Who provided the feedback?
• How is feedback provided to you?
• What do you do with feedback you receive?
(collaboration with peers, change in practice?)
• What type of follow-up is provided after you are
given feedback? Professional development
opportunities and/or resources?
• How do you integrate feedback from the Educator
Effectiveness System into your practice?

Describe any areas that you would welcome further
professional development or resources related to the
teacher evaluation process.
• What types of resources are available to you to
build your knowledge of the Educator
Effectiveness System?

How do you feel the Educator Effectiveness System,
particularly the Final Effectiveness Rating, represents your
effectiveness as a teacher?
• Are there aspects of your job that the Educator
Effectiveness System does not take into account?

How does a teacher’s willingness
to support the new evaluation
policy align with the four
characteristics of change (need,
clarity, complexity, practicality)?

How would you describe your willingness to adopt the
Educator Effectiveness System?
• How would you describe your willingness to create
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)?
• How would you describe your willingness to
participate in the Core Professionalism component?
• How would you describe your willingness to
participate in the Classroom Observation
component?

Give me an example of components, if any, in the system
you are willing to adopt.
• What do you believe influences your willingness to
adopt that/those component?

Give me an example of components, if any, in the system
you are unwilling to adopt.
• What do you believe influences your willingness to
adopt that/those component?

What changes, if any, would you make to the Educator
Effectiveness System to change teachers’ willingness to
adopt the system?
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 154

Additional Information Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about
your experience with the Educator Effectiveness System?

That concludes our interview. That you so much for your time and willingness to share your
perspective on the Educator Effectiveness System. You are welcome to contact me at any time if
you have questions about this research. With your permission, after I have gathered and started
to analyze the data for this study I would like to contact you again to discuss my preliminary
findings. Would you be willing to speak with me again about the Educator Effectiveness
System?

Thank you again for your time and input. The teacher perspective is so important in education
policy and I am grateful you were willing to share yours.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 155

Appendix B

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation Policy in Hawaii

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Lisa Christensen under the
supervision of Dr. Briana Hinga at the University of Southern California because you are a public
school teacher working for the Hawaii Department of Education who has participated in the
Educator Effectiveness System. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to
take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions held by Hawaii teachers of the
Educator Effectiveness System (EES) and its relationship to professional growth and
instructional quality. Your participation will be a valuable addition to the research on teacher
evaluation policy and findings could lead to greater understanding of educator perceptions of
teacher evaluations and the connection between teacher evaluations and professional growth.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

As a teacher you are in an ideal position to give valuable first-hand information about the
evaluation system from your own perspective. If you agree to participate, this study will consist
of an interview via phone or video conferencing that takes around 60 minutes and is very
informal. The interview will be audio taped to ensure a quality record of your responses.
Questions asked as part of this study are simply trying to capture your thoughts and perspective
on the Educator Effectiveness System and how you believe it affects professional growth.
Participation in this study is your decision. You do not have to participate and may also quit
being in the study at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will be given a $10 gift card as compensation for your time and participation in this study.
A gift card will be mailed to you after the conclusion of your interview.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 156

CONFIDENTIALITY

Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential. Each interview will be assigned a
number code to help ensure that personal identifiers are not revealed during the analysis and
write up of findings. Data will be kept for a minimum of three years after the completion of the
study.

The results of this research may be made public, shared with participating sites and quoted in
professional journals and meetings, but results from this study will only be reported as a group
such that no individual respondents can be identified. No identifiable information will be included.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Lisa
Christensen at 209-585-6924 or lnchrist@usc.edu.

If you would like to participate in the study please follow this link and fill in your information.

Participant Information

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In 2010 the United States Department Education initiated the Race to the Top competitive grant program to encourage comprehensive reform efforts in state education systems, with special attention paid to reforming teacher evaluation systems. As a winner of an initial Race to the Top grant Hawaii revamped its teacher evaluation system, creating the Educator Effectiveness System (EES). The purpose of this study was to understand the teacher evaluation system in Hawaii from the teacher perspective. The perspective of teachers is both unique and essential to understand as teachers serve a dual purpose in policy implementation as both the “agents of change” and “objects of reform” (Datnow & Park, 2009). This study used qualitative methods to understand policy implementation using Fullan’s (2007) educational change framework as a lens to understand teacher evaluation policy from the teacher perspective. Ten secondary teachers currently teaching within one Complex Area in Hawaii Public Schools were interviewed to better understand the perspective of teachers in relationship to the teacher evaluation policy change. Ultimately, the goal for this study was to give voice to the teacher perspective. Teachers supported change in teacher evaluation policy in Hawaii, but questioned whether adequate support structures were in place to ensure the new evaluation policy was influence teacher practice. Findings further revealed that teachers desired increased feedback and clarity in the evaluation process. Teachers’ support of evaluation policy was influenced by administrator messaging, support in the process, and perceptions of the practicality and quality of the policy.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

The Hawai'i State Teachers’ Association and Race to the Top: HSTA’S role in the RTTT grant

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of teacher perceptions about underrepresented students

PDF

How can I help you? A study of onboarding and ongoing supports for new teachers

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

PDF

Promoting a positive school culture from three perspectives: a promising practices study from the administrator perspective

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

Asset Metadata

Creator Christensen, Lisa Nicole (author)

Core Title Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/29/2018

Defense Date 06/12/2018

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

Tag Education Policy,Educator Effectiveness System,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher evaluation,teacher perceptions

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email lchristensen79@gmail.com,lnchrist@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-40736

Unique identifier UC11671619

Identifier etd-Christense-6559.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-40736 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Christense-6559.pdf

Dmrecord 40736

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Christensen, Lisa Nicole

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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