University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INVESTIGATING PROMISING PRACTICE OF TEACHER EVALUATION

IN TWO CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS

by

Marie Lourdes Morelock

________________________________________

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Marie Lourdes Morelock

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following people: Professor Priscilla
Wohlstetter for her support as the chair of my committee. Dr. Wohlstetter’s
research and commitment to school reform has helped me stay focused on my
academic and professional goals and I continue to learn so much from her
insight. I enjoy our conversations on effective school systems.
My gratitude also goes to the other members of my committee:
Professor Giselle Ragusa, whose knowledge of teaching and learning has
contributed greatly to my professional practice; and Professor Dominic Brewer,
whose research into school systems has helped me understand the complexity of
school reform. To the other professors in the USC School of Education, Dr.
Stuart Gothold, Dr. Kathy Stowe, Dr. Courtney Malloy and many others, I am
indebted to you for giving me the inspiration to be a true educational leader.
Dr. Roberta Benjamin, my mentor, whose guidance has shown me what
true educational leadership is. Dr. Don Shalvey continues to inspire me to keep
fighting to change public education so that all children can succeed. It is with
appreciation that I thank the leaders at Pacoima Charter School and East Palo
Alto Charter School for allowing me to learn and experience innovation at their
school sites.
iii
This dissertation could not have been written without the support of my
family and friends. I thank them for their encouragement. Finally, I would like
to acknowledge my husband, whose never-ending support and confidence has
helped me through this journey. His support has been invaluable.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY.................................................1
Background to the Problem ...................................................................1
The Promise of Teacher Evaluation ......................................................4
The Role of Charter Schools..................................................................6
Purpose of this Study...........................................................................10
Significance of the Study.....................................................................11
Organization of Dissertation................................................................12
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................14
Background to Teacher Evaluation .....................................................15
Definitions of a Quality Teacher .........................................................19
Teaching Requirements of No Child Left Behind...................21
Knowledge and Skills Performance Expectations...................22
Qualities of Effective Teachers ...............................................23
Standards for the Teaching Profession ....................................24
Components to Teacher Evaluation Systems ......................................29
The Role of the Principal.........................................................29
Peer Review .............................................................................33
Student-Achievement data...................................................................36
Other, Less Widely Used Components: Self-Evaluation,
Surveys, and Portfolios............................................................40
Conclusion ...........................................................................................43
CHAPTER 3. METHODS..............................................................................45
Research Design ..................................................................................45
Data Collection Processes and Procedures ..........................................49
Nomination Process.............................................................................49
Selection ..............................................................................................51
Pre-Site Interview ................................................................................51
Site Visit ..............................................................................................52
Interviews ................................................................................53
Professional Development Observation ..................................55
v
Document Analysis..................................................................56
Data Analysis.......................................................................................56
Summary..............................................................................................60
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS ..............................................................................61
Pacoima Charter School ......................................................................62
Introduction to the School .......................................................62
Description of Teacher Evaluation ..........................................63
Optional Informational Meeting..............................................65
Initial Planning Conference .................................................................66
Classroom Observations and Visits.........................................67
Mid-Year Conference ..............................................................68
Final Evaluation Conference ...................................................68
Goal of the Teacher Evaluation System ..............................................69
Implementation of the Teacher Evaluation System.............................71
History .....................................................................................71
Evidence of Impact ..................................................................72
Resource Requirements .......................................................................74
Budget and Staffing .................................................................74
Director of Instruction .............................................................74
Assistant Directors...................................................................75
Coordinator..............................................................................75
Substitutes................................................................................76
Facilities...................................................................................77
Professional Development.......................................................77
Challenges............................................................................................78
Time Constraints......................................................................78
Relationships............................................................................79
Challenges for Teachers ..........................................................80
Lessons Learned ..................................................................................81
Substitute Coverage .................................................................81
Feedback ..................................................................................82
Mid-Year Conference ..............................................................83
Evaluation Rubric ....................................................................84
Professional Development.......................................................84
Recommended Resources....................................................................85
East Palo Alto Charter School .............................................................86
Introduction to the School .......................................................86
Description of Aspire’s Teacher Evaluation System...........................88
Informal Observations and WalkThroughs .............................88
Observations by Coaches and Lead Teachers .........................92
Performance Rubric .................................................................93
vi
Goal of the Teacher Evaluation System ..............................................94
Implementation of the Teacher Evaluation System.............................95
History .....................................................................................95
Evidence of Impact ..................................................................96
Resource Requirements .......................................................................98
Budget and Staffing .................................................................98
Facilities...................................................................................99
Professional Development.......................................................99
Challenges..........................................................................................100
Feedback ................................................................................100
Lessons Learned ................................................................................101
Giving Feedback....................................................................101
Amount of Feedback..............................................................102
Recommended Resources......................................................103
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION .....................................................................105
Connections to Prior Research...........................................................105
Policy Implications ............................................................................117
Role of the Principal ..............................................................118
Professional Development.....................................................120
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................121
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................124
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. CONTENTS OF THE COMPENDIUM: TYPES
OF DATA TO BE COLLECTED .....................................................136
APPENDIX B. PRE-SITE INTERVIEW FORM ........................................137
APPENDIX C. PRINCIPAL ON-SITE INTERVIEW FORM ....................139
APPENDIX D. LEAD INTERVIEW FORM ..............................................142
APPENDIX E. FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL............................................146
APPENDIX F. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL.........................................................149
APPENDIX G. INITIAL PLANNING SHEET WORKSHEET
2007-2008..........................................................................................151
vii
APPENDIX H. PACOIMA CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION
OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, INITIAL
PLANNING SHEET .........................................................................153
APPENDIX I. PACOIMA CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHER
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MATRIX ......................................154
APPENDIX J. ASPIRE EDUCATOR PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT...................................158
APPENDIX K. EPACS CLASSROOM VISIT FORM ...............................173
APPENDIX L. EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER SCHOOL PRE-
OBSERVATION CONFERENCE NOTES......................................174
APPENDIX M. HUNTER MODEL PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS ...................................................................................175
APPENDIX N. TEACHER VERBAL BEHAVIORS .................................176
APPENDIX O. STUDENT ON-TASK AND OFF-TASK
BEHAVIOR.......................................................................................177
APPENDIX P. TEACHER VERBAL INTERACTION ..............................178
APPENDIX Q. TEACHER SPACE UTILIZATION ..................................179
APPENDIX R. EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER SCHOOL
OBSERVATION REFLECTION......................................................180
APPENDIX S. REFLECTING CONVERSATION.....................................181

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Framework for Teaching.................................................................27

Table 2. Triangulating Information Across Data Sources ............................58

Table 3. Demographic Profile of Pacoima Charter School
(2006-2007).....................................................................................64

Table 4. Profile of East Palo Alto Charter School: Summary of School
Demographics and Charter Status...................................................89

Table 5. Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Learning Environment ..158

Table 6. Hunter Model Performance Indicators..........................................175

Table 7. Teacher Verbal Behaviors.............................................................176

Table 8. Student On-Task and Off-Task Behavior .....................................177
ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Teacher Evaluation as a Means of Accomplishing School-Wide
Student Achievement........................................................................7

Figure 2. Theory of Action—How Pacoima Charter
School Leads to Higher Student Achievement ...............................70
Figure 3. Theory of Action—How Teacher Evaluation at EPACS Leads
to Higher Student Achievement......................................................95
Figure 4. Teacher Verbal Interaction............................................................178
Figure 5. Teacher Space Utilization .............................................................179
x
ABSTRACT

Traditional teacher evaluation systems have had little to no impact on
changing teacher behavior or improving student achievement. The purpose of
this study was to investigate teacher evaluation at two California charter schools,
in which teacher evaluation was found to have an associated impact on
improved teacher performance and student progress.
A qualitative case study applied descriptive research and design and
included the following data sources: interviews of charter school personnel, a
review of archival documents, and observations of professional development
meetings related to teacher evaluation. The investigation answered the
following research questions: How do charter schools use teacher evaluation to
improve student achievement? How are resources used to implement teacher
evaluation to improve student achievement? What challenges have charter
schools faced in implementing teacher evaluation? What evidence exists that
teacher evaluation has resulted in positive educational outcomes?
The study found that the strongest evidence of impact of an effective
teacher evaluation system was the change in teacher behavior. Through a
comprehensive evaluation system consisting of classroom observations and
professional development, teachers had opportunities to reflect on their practice
and make instructional decisions that led to greater student progress. Teachers
xi
also were provided with feedback that included recommendations or action
plans to help achieve school-wide student achievement goals.
In order to implement effective teacher evaluation, the findings
suggested several practical strategies. First, the school community must have a
common understanding of the definition of a quality teacher. Additionally, the
Principal or administrators involved in the evaluation must have a strong
knowledge of effective instructional practices and must prioritize instruction
above other administrative responsibilities. Classroom visits must be regular
and consistent, and teachers must be given adequate professional development
and time for collaborative meetings with colleagues. Finally, teacher evaluation
must align to the fulfillment of the school’s overall improvement goals.
The findings from this study have been incorporated into the University
of Southern California’s Web-Compendium of Promising Practices designed to
disseminate successful innovative practices beyond the school the school site to
assist other policy makers and educators who wish to improve their own teacher
evaluation systems.

1
CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Background to the Problem
In 2007, the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
(United States Department of Education, 2002) reignited political debate over
the federal role in education (Hoff, 2007). The NCLB, which focuses on
increased accountability, student achievement, and expanded school choice, was
originally signed into law in 2001 by President George W. Bush as a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (1965).
This policy expanded federal involvement in education by mandating testing for
all students in grades 3-8 and monitoring the performance of specific subgroups
through annual measurable objectives known as adequate yearly progress or
AYP. Schools are required to meet AYP on annual standardized tests in
English-language arts and math, or they are subject to sanctions. In addition,
schools must utilize research-based instructional materials in their curriculum
and hire teachers who meet the credential requirements of being “highly-
qualified” (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The goal of the No Child
Left Behind Act is to achieve universal proficiency in which all students are
proficient in English-language arts and math by 2014.
2
Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act, California has had its own system
of accountability, known as the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999
(California Department of Education, 2001). Under this measure, each school
was assigned an Academic Performance Index or API that indicated student
performance and growth based on the state’s standardized tests (California
Department of Education, 2001). Schools must meet specific annual growth
targets. Schools that failed to do so were eligible for state and local
interventions, while schools that met growth criteria were eligible for awards.
Despite these external accountability systems, data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that Black and Hispanic
students continue to lag behind White and Asian students in annual assessment
data in reading and math (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
According to the 2005 NAEP data, 39% of White students and 40% of
Asian/Pacific Islander students scored proficient or above in reading on the
annual fourth grade standardized test, compared to 12% of Black students and
15% of Hispanic students. On the fourth-grade math test, 47% of White
students and 54% of Asian students scored proficient or above, while 13% of
Black students and 19% of Hispanic students scored proficient or above.
In addition, students who qualified for free or reduced lunch scored
lower on reading and math assessments than students who did not receive free or
reduced lunch. In reading, 15% of fourth and eighth grade students scored
3
proficient or above, compared to 42% and 38% of fourth and eighth graders not
on free or reduced lunch. In math, 19% of fourth graders and 13% of eighth
graders scored at or above proficient, compared to 50% and 39% respectively.
These disparities in academic achievement were particularly acute in urban inner
city schools that tended to have higher concentrations of poor and minority
students. If external accountability systems such as the No Child Left Behind
Act and the California Academic Performance Index were meant to close
achievement gaps, then implementation suggests they have not been effective.
A report released by EdSource (2006), a non-profit research organization
in California, sought to answer the question of why some schools with poor and
minority populations outperform others. The study involved 257 California
schools over 2 years, and primarily focused on schools that had high levels of
English learners, and students from low-income families whose parents were not
high-school graduates. Many of these schools were located in urban areas. The
findings from the study indicated that four specific domains were most strongly
correlated with higher school API scores: (a) prioritizing student achievement;
(b) implementing a coherent, standards-based instructional program; (c) using
assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction; and (d)
ensuring the availability of instructional materials (EdSource, 2006). The study
further concluded that these domains did not operate independently; instead,
they occurred simultaneously in the same school. The domains did not cause
4
higher student achievement; rather schools that had strong implementation of the
four domains had higher API scores than schools that did not. Schools that had
higher internal agreement over shared norms of purpose and vision, instructional
practice, and professional accountability were better able to meet the external
demands of accountability (Elmore, 2003; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Once
internal accountability was established, the threat of federal or state sanctions
became largely irrelevant, since schools with internal coherence were better able
to meet the pressures of external accountability systems (Elmore, 2003).

The Promise of Teacher Evaluation
Collective accountability efforts must emphasize the individual teacher
as the unit of action (O’Day, 2002). The teacher has a strong influence on
student achievement. An effective teacher at an effective school can increase
student achievement for a student performing at the 50
th
percentile performance
to the 96
th
percentile after two years (Marzano, 2003). An ineffective teacher at
an effective school can decrease performance to the 37
th
percentile (Marzano,
2003). The difference between being taught by a good teacher and being taught
by a bad teacher can translate into a full grade level of achievement (Borman &
Kimball, 2005). Data on teacher quality from studies in Tennessee and Texas
indicated that highly effective teachers were able to produce greater gains in
student achievement, and that ineffective teachers had negative effects on
5
students which impacted them throughout their schooling (Tucker & Stronge,
2005). Teacher effects may have a stronger influence on student achievement
than school effects, particularly in high-poverty schools (Nye, Konstantopoulos,
& Hedges, 2004).
Despite the findings of teacher effectiveness on student achievement,
traditional teacher evaluation systems had shown little to no effect on improving
student achievement (Colby, Bradshaw, & Joyner, 2002a). In many schools,
teacher evaluation was merely a formality, conducted by administrators, that
involved paperwork largely unrelated to improving teaching and learning
(Holland, 2006). Evaluation systems rarely identified teachers who were
effective at increasing achievement or conversely, teachers who required
intervention to meet levels of effectiveness (Carey, 2004). Instead, traditional
evaluation systems followed a clinical supervision model in which a supervisor
observed a teacher, conducted a post-observation conference with the teacher,
and wrote a report that was placed into the teacher’s file. These systems were
not usually aligned to outcome measures or standards of practice (O’Day, 2002),
nor did they relate to the school-wide purpose or vision. The teacher evaluation
systems commonly operated separately from the accomplishment of school-wide
goals.
However, researchers have argued that a well-designed teacher
evaluation system should be an integral component to overall school
6
improvement (see, for example, Normore, 2005). Internal agreement over
curriculum and instruction fostered through teacher evaluation systems supports
and increases teacher effectiveness. When ineffective or marginal teaching
exists, a school that implements a high-quality teacher evaluation system will
attract and retain high quality teachers, which ultimately leads to higher student
achievement and more effective schools. According to the research (Normore,
2005; Peterson, 2000; Tucker & Stronge, 2005), such a high-quality system
requires multiple measures for assessing teacher performance and linkages to the
accomplishment of school improvement goals. The theory of action linking
teacher evaluation to improved school improvement is depicted graphically in
Figure 1.

The Role of Charter Schools
Since 1991, when the first charter school law passed in Minnesota, the
prevalence of charter schools has expanded throughout the United States.
Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia operate charter schools and the
number of schools has continued to grow (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). Statistics
have shown that charter schools are able to maintain their rates of student
achievement in California more rapidly than non-charter school (Center for
Educational Governance, 2007).
7
Shared norms
and purpose
Agreement on
curriculum and
instructional
approach
Teacher
evaluation with
multiple measures
for assessing
teacher
performance
Attract
new
teachers
Change in
existing
faculty
behavior
Retention
of quality
teachers
Higher Student Achievement
Improvement in
teacher quality

Figure 1. Teacher Evaluation as a Means of Accomplishing School-Wide
Student Achievement

Recently, an EdSource report concluded that despite variations in overall
charter school student-achievement data, California charter high schools and
middle school tend to outperform students in non-charter schools (2007). Thus,
charter schools, which are now in their adolescent phase, offer promising
alternatives to the traditional public educational system (Center for Education
Reform, 2005).
Charter schools provide a forum for investigating innovative teacher
evaluation systems because charter schools are free from most rules and
regulations by which district-run schools operate, and are granted autonomy in
site-based decision-making. Charter schools exist through charter agreements
that are negotiated between the school founders and the charter school
authorizers (Vergari, 2007). The local autonomy of charter schools allows them
8
to determine their own mission, curriculum, governance, structure, personnel,
and allocation of resources (Brewer & Wohlstetter, 2005). The theory behind
charter schools is that they have greater accountability for demonstrating
increased student achievement because they face the possibility of being closed
down (Brewer & Wohlstetter, 2005). Charter schools have specific timelines
(the end of their charter agreement) for meeting accountability requirements or
they face the possibility of non-renewal or charter revocation.
Charter schools operate in a market-driven system, in which they are
accountable to their consumers—students and parents. The market-based
system gives parents a choice in their child’s education and promotes increased
competition amongst schools to produce high student achievement (Chubb &
Moe, 1990). Because of this increased competition, schools also are challenged
to provide innovative programs to ensure school success (Murphy & Shiffman,
2002). Accountability coupled with autonomy allows charter schools to be
innovative in ways that help students meet high standards (Consoletti & Allen,
2007).
According to the research, charter schools have been innovative in the
area of teacher hiring. The majority of charter schools do not have teachers’
unions (Vergari, 2007), which frees them from collective bargaining contracts.
Some charter schools will pay a premium for higher performing teachers (Finn
& Kanstoroom, 2002). Schools hire teachers with shared vision and
9
pedagogical beliefs to foster increased professionalism and shared accountability
(Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Charter schools have found innovative ways to
recognize teacher performance because of their autonomy and freedom. These
innovations include performance evaluation systems that differ from the
traditional clinical supervision model. In some charter schools, these include
regular visits to classrooms that are incorporated into evaluation criteria, as well
as monetary compensation for teachers who demonstrate higher ratings on
performance standards, an increase in student achievement, or acquired
knowledge and skills necessary to improving teaching performance (Odden,
2003).
Innovation is critical to the charter school movement because the
underlying premise of charter schools is to create laboratories for change for the
entire educational system (Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). Charter schools are
intended to have a lighthouse effect, in which successful practices are
implemented beyond charter schools to the traditional educational system
(Brewer & Wohlstetter, 2005; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). In sum, advocates of
charter schools believe they can lead to lessons of innovation and efficiency—
lessons that should ultimately transfer to the traditional public education system.

10
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the promising practice of
teacher evaluation in two California charter schools. As noted earlier, high
quality teacher evaluation systems are useful for attracting and retaining high-
quality teachers. The research suggests, moreover, that effective teachers can
significantly improve student achievement (Marzano, 2003). By examining
effective teacher evaluation in charter schools, this study could determine what
processes or structures are necessary for successful implementation of teacher
evaluation systems.
This study was conducted as part of a thematic dissertation group that
investigated promising practices in California charter schools. In addition to
teacher evaluation, promising practices included adult mentoring of at-risk
students, increasing redesignation rates of English-language learners, integrating
academics into career and technical education, school leaders’ use of data for
planning and school improvement, the use of technology to increase parent
involvement, and uses of school time and writing across the curriculum. Each
of these promising practices was carefully evaluated and incorporated into the
University of Southern California’s Compendium of Promising Practices in
Charter Schools. Schools were either self-nominated or nominated by others
and were required to provide evidence of implementation. In addition,
nominated schools had to demonstrate effectiveness in improving school or
11
student performance, and the potential for replication in other school settings.
This is the second round of data collection for the USC Compendium. In the
first round, data were collected in the following ten promising practice areas:
arts-themed education, high-school reform, the integration of technology into
math and science, literacy for English-language learners, parent involvement,
project-based learning, teacher leadership development, school-university
partnerships, special education and student discipline.

Significance of the Study
Since the 1960s, the United States has implemented numerous reform
movements to improve the educational system (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991).
Despite these reforms, disparities continue to exist between the achievement
data of poor and minority students and their white middle-class counterparts.
Charter schools are one reform meant to transform the traditional public
education system, yet often knowledge regarding promising practices is limited
to the school site. Charter schools tend to operate in isolation (Wohlstetter &
Kuzin, 2006). This poses a challenge in the dissemination of charter school
innovation since the development of new knowledge requires collaborative
involvement, rather than individuals working in isolation (Manela & Moxley,
2002). Further, in order for new knowledge to be used, it must be documented
and stored in such a way that is accessible (Manela & Moxley, 2002). Others
12
can then use the new knowledge, replicate, adapt or experiment with promising
practices (Bardach, 2004; Grayson, 2007).
USC’s Compendium of Promising Practices, created in 2006 by the
Center on Educational Governance (2007), assists charter schools in the
dissemination of innovative programs, policies, and practices currently
implemented in California charter school (Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006). This
web-based compendium is designed to assist educators, policy makers and the
general public by identifying successful practices in charter schools. The online
forum is easily accessible and allows an exchange of ideas to impart charter
school innovation. Through the Compendium, charter schools can fulfill their
promise of school reform and impacting the public system beyond individual
charter schools (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). The University of Southern
California’s Compendium of Promising Practices is a constantly evolving
collection of innovative strategies, policies, and educational programs, and is
updated regularly. The findings from this thematic dissertation group will be
incorporated into the Compendium.

Organization of Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter
provides an overview and introduction to the research problem and topic. The
second chapter consists of a literature review on the practice of teacher
13
evaluation and instructional supervision. Chapter 3 describes the methodology
for conducting the qualitative study, while Chapter 4 summarizes and discusses
research findings. Finally, Chapter 5 details the study conclusions to the
investigation and provides implications for policy makers and practitioners.
14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to investigate the promising practice of
teacher evaluation in two California charter schools. As discussed in Chapter 1,
teacher evaluation can play a critical role in school improvement. Quality
teacher evaluation systems attract and retain high-quality teachers, and such
teachers are effective at increasing student achievement. The dictionary
definition for the word evaluate is “to assess, judge or determine the
significance, worth, or quality of.” For purposes of this study, the term “teacher
evaluation” refers to the systematic assessment of teacher performance. This
systematic assessment involves a variety of processes (e.g., classroom
observations, and self-reports) that will be discussed later in the chapter.
This chapter reviews relevant literature relating to teacher evaluation
systems. In order to identify the research, a variety of electronic databases were
searched. Some of the resources were specific to the field of education, while
others were of general interest. Electronic databases searched included ERIC
and Psychinfo. The key words “teacher evaluation” were used in initial
searches; however, results were limited. Searches were then broadened to
include the following key words: teacher effectiveness, teacher quality, and
instructional supervision. In order to further narrow the search, key words were
15
combined with phrases such as “instructional improvement,” “school
improvement,” and “administrator role.” Research from peer-reviewed journals,
library books, popular news media, charter school studies, policy briefs,
practitioner journals, and papers presented at conferences within the last 15
years were included in the review.
Chapter 2 begins with an overview of the purposes of teacher evaluation,
a review of traditional evaluation processes, and the relationship between
teacher evaluation and school improvement. Next, various definitions of quality
teaching are described and compared. The third section examines design
components of effective teacher evaluation system, as well as the challenges
associated with its implementation.

Background to Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation systems are used to guide decisions of hiring and
dismissal, and to address the quality of the educational program. Through
teacher evaluation, schools can recognize exemplary teaching practices and
determine areas in need of professional development and school improvement.
According to the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation
(1988), well-designed systems attract and retain quality teachers and meet the
personnel evaluation standards of propriety, utility, feasibility, and accuracy.
The Joint Committee further concluded that well-designed systems protect the
16
rights of the individuals who participated in the evaluation, provided timely and
useful information, recognized school context, and used adequate data to guide
decision-making (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation,
1988). If teacher evaluation is critical to important school-wide decisions, then
systems should be fair, valid, and useful. These systems should be meaningful
for both the individual being evaluated, as well as for the school. Research
suggests that these well-designed systems must directly link to the school’s
mission, emphasize student outcomes, and include adequate resources for
successful implementation (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
Teacher evaluation has two primary objectives: accountability and
professional growth (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The accountability
component assures quality and contributes to the school’s mission. It relates to
the summative assessment of teacher performance, which influences high-stakes
decisions of employment. The professional growth component addresses the
professional development needs of the teacher and relates to overall school
improvement. The professional growth component also includes formative
assessments that help identify areas of improvement. Evaluation systems must
address both purposes—accountability and professional growth—in order to
have a positive effect on teacher effectiveness and overall school improvement
(Ellett & Teddlie, 2003). Teachers must be accountable for improving their
individual performance to meet the organizational needs of the school.
17
However, research to date suggests that traditional teacher evaluation
systems have had little to no impact on improving teaching and learning
(Holland, 2006). Instead, these systems played a supplementary role, in which
administrators conducted observations, provided feedback, conducted post-
observation conferences, and completed paperwork which was placed in
teachers’ personnel files (Danielson & McGreal; 2007; Holland, 2006).
Traditional systems have fallen into three traps—the bureaucratic organization
and labor management trap, the teaching as a semi-profession trap, and the
teacher empowerment and collegiality of leadership trap (Cooper, Ehrensal, &
Bromme, 2005). Instead of improving schools, evaluation systems have become
more concerned with union contracts, adherence to prescribed curriculum,
teaching to the test, and potential conflicts between supporting teachers and
supervising teachers (Cooper, et al 2005). According to past research, teacher
evaluation is disconnected from actual teaching performance. The evaluation
was found to be more of a “meaningless exercise” (Danielson & McGreal, 2000,
p. 7) or a “bureaucratic ritual” (Holland, 2006, p. 67). Additionally, evaluations
consisted of quick-classroom visits, or “drive-bys” in which Principals spent
short period of time in classrooms and observed classroom conditions that do
not directly focus on the quality of teaching (Toch & Rothman, 2008, p. 2).
Traditional teacher evaluation processes have tended to operate
separately with little connection to the achievement of school-wide goals. The
18
current systems of teacher evaluation and school improvement have been
characterized as “loosely coupled” (Teddlie, Stringfield, & Burdett, 2003, p.10),
since they operate independent of school improvement goals.
To the contrary, research suggests that teacher evaluation and school
improvement should be interrelated and logically linked. In a study of teacher
evaluation research and school effectiveness, Ellet and Teddlie (2003)
concluded following: “You will find effective teachers in less effective schools,
but you will not find ineffective teachers in more effective schools, because
more effective schools have developed processes whereby they eliminate poorer
teaching” (pp. 119-120).
Research data from different studies involving classroom observations
were analyzed to determine the link between teacher behaviors and effective
schools. The studies found that teachers in more effective schools demonstrate
less variance in behaviors than teachers in less effective schools (Ellet &
Teddlie, 2003).
If quality teaching is essential to student success, then effective schools
must create processes to retain quality teachers and intervene when ineffective
or marginal teaching exists. As noted earlier, policies need to support
recruitment, selection, and retention of effective teachers, as well as help
teachers improve their competence and commitment (Webb & Norton, 2003).
Further, quality assurance is continuously maintained. Personnel evaluations
19
aligned with school improvement goals hold teachers accountable for improving
practice and accomplishing school-wide goals. Schools with effective
evaluation systems combine teacher accountability and teacher improvement,
leading to more successful teaching, and ultimately, more successful schools.
According to a January 2008 report by Education Sector, teacher evaluations are
at the center of the educational enterprise of quality teaching, which makes them
a powerful level of teacher and school improvement (Toch & Rothman, 2008).
The components of an evaluation system must coincide with the dual
purposes of accountability and improvement. According to Webb and Norton
(2003), an effective evaluation system includes three major elements: (a) what
will be evaluated, (b) what level of performance is expected, and (c) how
evidence will be collected. The context of teacher quality is defined and
includes qualifications, behaviors, and outcomes (Tucker & Stronge, 2006).
Further, multiple sources of data are used (Peterson & Peterson, 2006). In sum,
effective teacher evaluation systems define a clear process for collecting
information and all elements align with the achievement of school-wide goals.
Finally, the teacher evaluation processes are meaningful both to the individual
and the school.
Definitions of a Quality Teacher
Effective evaluation systems are built upon explicit statements of what
qualifications are required of in-service teachers, as well as what teachers are
20
expected to do (Webb & Norton, 2003; Wheeler & Scriven, 2006). Teaching is
a complex activity that involves behaviors, skills, and competencies (Darling-
Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007). Responsibilities include planning and
implementing lessons, marking and giving feedback, addressing students’ social
and emotional needs, communicating with parents and stakeholders, and
participating in professional development (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, &
Robinson, 2004). The work can be physically, emotionally, and cognitively
demanding (Danielson, 2007).
Identifying teacher quality through requirements, attributes, and
performance expectations is the initial step in implementing a sound evaluation
process (Wheeler & Scriven, 2006). Teacher requirements usually include
university degrees, credentials, and coursework. Attributes or traits are qualities
necessary for good performance and usually describe who teachers are (e.g.,
empathic, strong interpersonal skills, and motivated) rather than what teachers
do. On the other hand, performance expectations describe what teachers
actually do—the behaviors and practices associated with good teaching. The
different types of criteria are not mutually exclusive and are usually combined in
evaluation systems (Webb & Norton, 2003). The explicit inclusion of
requirements, attributes, and performance behaviors in teacher evaluation
systems help reduce ambiguity and makes expectations to participants clear
prior to the evaluation process.
21

Teaching Requirements of No Child Left Behind
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) addresses teacher quality by
mandating that teachers meet the highly qualified requirements under the
provisions of the law (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Specific
requirements are determined by each state. At minimum, the federal
government requires that highly qualified teachers have: (a) a bachelor’s
degree, (b) full state certification or licensure, and (c) proven knowledge of the
subject taught. With regard to the third criterion, demonstration of subject
matter knowledge varies, but many states require an exam or subject area
authorization to determine subject matter competency. Many states also allow
alternative demonstrations of competency under the High, Objective, Uniform,
State Standard of Evaluation or HOUSSE (U.S. Department of Education,
2001). HOUSSE requirements usually include teaching experience, professional
development and knowledge in the subject garnered over time in the profession
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
Teacher qualifications are one of the basic elements of schooling and
some argue that licensing has a high impact on students’ learning (Darling-
Hammond, 2004). Research indicates that teachers who hold adequate licensing
and certification status have completed the necessary coursework for quality
teaching. However, a “highly-qualified” teacher does not necessarily mean that
22
a teacher is “high-quality” (Emerick, Hirsch, Berry, 2004). A report conducted
by Kane, Rockloff, and Staiger (2006) found no meaningful difference in the
achievement results of students taught by certified teachers than students taught
by uncertified teachers. Teacher credentials may be important, but they do not
address actual teacher qualities or teaching performance in the classroom.

Knowledge and Skills Performance Expectations
Teacher behaviors include a variety of responsibilities that rely on
specific knowledge and skills. Teachers are expected to know how to manage
and organize classrooms, implement instruction, interact with students
appropriately, monitor student progress, and participate in professional
communities. Knowledge of subject matter, competence with assessment and
instruction, and professionalism are essential to carrying out these
responsibilities (Wheeler & Scriven, 2006). Tools such as checklists, standards,
or frameworks have been developed to assess competency levels (knowledge
and skills) for each of these teaching responsibilities. Such tools help clarify
expectations, define performance, and provide dialogue for discussing teacher
behaviors (Castles-Bentley, Fillion, Allen, Ross, & Gordon, 2005; Holland,
2005). The use of these tools helps schools develop a common language linking
individual teacher performance with accountability and school improvement.
23
Qualities of Effective Teachers
Stronge (2002) determined that teachers must have specific qualities to
teach effectively. These qualities encompass who teachers are and what
teachers do. They include attributes and behaviors that describe teacher
personality traits, as well as how the teacher manages the classroom, organizes
for instruction, implements lessons, assesses students’ progress and exhibits
professional behavior (Stronge, 2002). Stronge organized teacher qualities in a
skills checklist to assess the quality of teacher behavior—master, professional,
apprentice, or ineffective teacher. As noted in the literature, many schools use
similar checklists to identify effective teaching when conducting classroom
visits or walk-throughs (Peterson, 2000).
Checklists may be useful for collecting data; however, they raise issues
of validity and utility (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). For instance, expected
performance varies between teachers from different grade-levels and content
areas and checklists may not address this variability. In addition, checklists
provide only a snapshot of teacher performance at one point in time, rather than
a comprehensive assessment. As a result, checklists may not provide sufficient
data for making high-stakes decisions regarding employment.

24
Standards for the Teaching Profession
Standards and frameworks are other ways of determining roles and
responsibilities of teachers. Some states use standards for licensing, while
others use standards for assessing teacher performance (Conley, Muncey, &
You, 2005). In a few cases, standards are used for both licensure and
assessment. The most commonly recognized teaching standards are the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). These standards
are organized into the following five key propositions: (a) teachers are
committed to students and learning, (b) teachers know the subjects they teach
and how to teach those subjects to students, (c) teachers are responsible for
managing and monitoring student learning, (d) teachers think systematically
about their practice and learn from experience, and (e) teachers are members of
learning communities (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
n.d.). Teachers are expected to demonstrate competency in each of these five
areas through data collection methods that include observations, work samples
and a professional portfolio. Performance is assessed using the National Board
Standards that are specific to each certification area and child development
level. Additionally, teachers who are Nationally Board Certified are assumed to
be proficient teachers under the Highly Qualified requirements of No Child Left
Behind.
25
Proponents of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
and other state standards argue that standards create criteria for
“professionalizing instructional supervision” (Castles-Bentley et al., 2005, p.
19). Standards provide a tool to the clinical supervision model of evaluation that
involves the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, and the post-
observation conference (Stotko, Pajak, & Goldsberry, 2005). They focus
observations on teaching behaviors and practices, rather then qualities or traits.
Finally, standards establish common expectations, ensure quality control, and
provide a common language between administrators and teachers for teacher
improvement.
An alternative method for identifying common expectations is
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching originally developed in 1996, updated in
2007. This framework describes aspects of teachers’ daily work and underlying
assumptions of the responsibilities of teaching (Danielson, 2007). Numerous
schools across the United States are using the framework to assess teacher
effectiveness (Borman & Kimball, 2005; Koppich, 2005; Milanowski &
Heneman, 2001). In contrast to the National Board Standards, the framework is
designed to address all characteristics of teaching, regardless of subject area or
grade-level. Its purpose is to serve as a guide for shared understanding of
effective teaching (Danielson, 2007). Teaching responsibilities are constituted
into four domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment,
26
instruction. and professional responsibilities. These domains are illustrated in
Table 1. Each domain is described by a list of components that are assessed
using a rubric. Performance is described as unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, or
distinguished. Schools that use the framework develop a common language
regarding teacher and school improvement. Further, the framework is designed
to be comprehensive to meet all aspects of teaching, including behaviors outside
of the classroom (Danielson, 2007). Unlike the National Board Teaching
Standards, the Framework for Effective Teaching (Danielson, 2007) is not
subject or grade-level specific.
Danielson’s Framework for Effective teaching is currently being used at
schools in Cincinnati, Ohio; Washoe, Nevada; Coventry, Rhode Island; and Los
Angeles, California. In each school, evaluators judge teacher performance
through ratings on the rubrics. Performance expectations differ by number of
years teaching. Teachers who meet higher levels of proficiency receive
monetary compensation. This compensation is known as knowledge and skills
based pay (Odden, 2003). Teachers who receive high-performance ratings are
assumed to possess the skills required for student achievement success.
Although performance standards are important, data are mixed regarding
their effectiveness. In a study of teacher quality in Washoe, Nevada, teachers
who received higher scores on teaching standards improved in closing the
27
Table 1
Framework for Teaching
Domain Component
Domain 1:
Planning and
Preparation
1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and
pedagogy
1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students
1c: Setting instructional outcomes
1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources
1e: Designing coherent instruction
1f: Designing student assessments

Domain 2:
The Classroom
Environment
2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport
2b: Establishing a culture of learning
2c: Managing classroom procedures
2d: Managing student behavior
2e: Organizing physical space

Domain 3:
Instruction
3a: Communicating with students
3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques
3c: Engaging students in learning
3d: Using assessment in instruction
3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness

Domain 4:
Professional
Responsibilities
4a: Reflecting on teaching
4b: Maintaining accurate records
4c: Communicating with families
4d: Participating in a professional community
4e: Growing and developing professionally
4f: Showing professionalism

achievement gap in reading, yet showed little progress in math (Borman &
Kimball, 2005). The same was found in a 2004 study at Vaughn Next Century
Learning Center in Los Angeles, in which the correlations between high teacher
evaluation scores and achievement in math was not statistically significant
28
(Gallagher, 20004). In sum, the research suggests that professional teaching
standards may be necessary but not sufficient for ensuring academic success
(Borman & Kimball, 2005). High correlations may exist between teacher
evaluation scores and student achievement, but this may be due to variables such
as student demographic data, instructional resources and parent education level,
rather than teacher performance (Milanowski, 2004). Standards are effective for
clarifying performance expectations, but research is still inconclusive in
determining whether teachers who receive higher markings on performance
standards are more effective in producing higher-student achievement.
A second challenge related to standards-based supervision is the time
commitment involved for both teachers and administrators (Milanowski &
Heneman, 2001). In a study of teacher reactions to standards-based supervision,
Milanowski and Heneman (2001) found that challenges arose regarding teacher
workload, timely feedback from administrators, and self-esteem for veteran
teachers. While most teachers agreed that the standards were an excellent tool
for self-reflection on practice, many were hesitant to use the standards as part of
their professional evaluation. Teachers questioned the credibility and fairness
on the part of the administrator, particularly with respect to how well trained
administrators were in conducting standards-based evaluations. The mixed
results regarding the effectiveness of standards-based evaluation suggest
weaknesses implementation. In order for standards to have a positive affect on
29
teacher and school improvement, the implementation of standards-based
performance expectations must be meaningful for both the individual teacher
and the school. Whether through frameworks, standards, checklists, or
performance criteria, a school must have a common understanding of the
qualities for effective teaching (Wheeler & Scriven, 2006).

Components to Teacher Evaluation Systems
Most teacher evaluation systems include one or more components. The
components suggest data sources and data collection procedures for selecting,
identifying, and retaining effective teachers. The system components are
described below, as well as the challenges that arise during implementation.
The information is organized around the following four components: the role of
the Principal; peer review; the use of student-achievement data; and other less
widely used components, such as self-evaluation, surveys and portfolios.

The Role of the Principal
Traditional teacher evaluation systems usually include a pre-conference
with the Principal and teacher, a formal observation, and a post-observation
conference. This process takes place one or more times a year, and is often
viewed as a “bureaucratic routine” (Holland, 2004), with little to no effect on the
improvement of teaching and learning (Colby et al., 2002b; Holland, 2004;.
30
Stronge, 2006). Opponents to this clinical supervision model argue that the
process should be separated from evaluation (Starratt, 1997). Evaluation is
meant to improve teaching through collaboration between Principals and
teachers. Conventional clinical supervision models focus evaluation on
bureaucratic control, rather than investing in human capital (Smylie, 1997). If
teacher behavior is critical to overall school improvement, then evaluation
procedures must reinforce processes for recognizing successful practices and
retaining effective teachers. The Principal plays a critical role in carrying out
these procedures.
The primary responsibility of the Principal is to ensure that the school is
meeting state and federal accountability demands, particularly with respect to
student achievement. This requires the Principal to take an active role as an
instructional leader (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Holland, 2004; Kaye, 2004; Mitchell
& Castle, 2005; Peterson, 2004). An effective instructional leader regularly
monitors the instructional program, provides feedback to teachers, and supports
teacher improvement (Blasé & Blasé, 2004). These duties are typically carried
out through regular classroom observations and the use of a variety of other data
instruments, including the tools described above for assessing teacher
performance.
Classroom observations can be formal or informal. Formal observations
are usually preceded by a conference, in which the teacher and Principal
31
establish expectations of what should be observed during the formal visit.
Informal observations, or walk-throughs, take place at any time of the day and
can last up to 15 minutes. Both formal and informal observations allow
opportunities to systematically collect data and document teacher performance
(Peterson & Peterson, 2006; Zepeda, 2007). Regardless of whether observations
are formal or informal, they should be followed by post-observation
conferences. During this time, the teacher and Principal can discuss and analyze
information from the visit. Classroom observations must take place regularly
(e.g., once a month), rather than the one or two times a year that are more
common in traditional clinical supervision processes.
In addition to classroom observations, administrators may use other data
to evaluate teacher practice. Such data may include student achievement,
portfolios, and teacher participation in professional development activities
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Holland, 2004; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Such
information helps administrators conduct formative and summative assessments
of teacher performance: Principals use the data to identify areas for teacher
improvement and to make decisions regarding employment.
As an instructional leader, the Principal has the professional and moral
obligation to intervene when marginal teaching exists (Kaye, 2004). This
intervention can include coaching, mentoring, providing professional
development, or counseling to teachers to leave the profession (Kaplan &
32
Owings, 2001). Similarly, the Principal must recognize, acknowledge, and
highlight effective teachers (Peterson, 2004). Throughout the process, the
Principal must remain focused on the school improvement goals of the
organization (Blasé & Blasé, 2004). The evaluation system is critical to this
process because it allows the Principal to make high-stakes decisions regarding
a teacher’s contribution to overall school improvement goals. When necessary,
the Principal must decide when and how to address ineffective instructional
practice. Principals must use the evaluation process as an opportunity to
improve instruction and student achievement (Toch & Rothman, 2008).
Although it is imperative for Principals to be visible instructional
leaders, often Principals do not have sufficient time to carry out comprehensive
evaluations (Peterson, 2004). Administrative tasks encroach on Principal time
for classroom observations and meetings with teachers, and so Principals must
make judgments where time and effort should be placed (Peterson & Peterson,
2006). Conducting an effective teacher evaluation system is but one
responsibility among many that include supervising all certificated and
classified staff, assuring fiscal accountability, overseeing school-wide discipline,
and managing overall school-wide operations. Although teacher evaluation is
important, Principals are faced with other duties that effectively take time away
from effective instructional leadership.
33
Collective bargaining and unions were also cited in the research as
barriers to effective Principal supervision of teachers. Painter (2000) found in
an Oregon study that 67.6 % of Principals noted that the teachers’ union was the
primary obstacle to effective teacher evaluation. Legal constraints, collective
bargaining agreements, and grievance procedures dissuaded Principals from
counseling or dismissing ineffective teachers (Painter, 2000). Dealing with
ineffective teachers required a substantial investment in money, time and
resources, as well as careful attention to the documentation of performance and
adherence to the union contract. Even when warranted, employee dismissal was
usually not upheld unless all procedures were followed according to law, policy,
and the negotiated contract. Because of these complexities, many Principals
often tolerated teacher incompetence and avoided confronting problems of
teacher performance (Painter, 2000). Consequently, ineffective teaching
continues to exist despite the recognition by Principals of ineffective practice.

Peer Review
In addition to systematic observations by administrators, peer review has
become more common in recent years as part of performance assessment and
school improvement plans (Kumrow & Dahlen, 2002). Many schools that
implement peer review do so as part of the formative evaluation process, though
results may also be used for summative decisions. Also known as peer
34
observations or peer coaching, the process is meant to improve teacher quality
through colleague support (Van Zant, Razska, & Kutzner, 2001) that is provided
through classroom observations or collaboration time. This may refer to support
for beginning teachers (Milanowski, 2006; Van Zant, et al., 2001), support for
tenured teachers who require intervention due to performance (Kumrow &
Dahen, 2002; Peterson, Kelly, & Caskey, 2002) or opportunities for teachers to
collaborate on school improvement. Peer observation programs have been
compared to residency programs in medical school, and are designed to increase
professionalism in teaching (Van Zant et al., 2001).
In California, the Peer Assistance and Review program (PAR) is a
statewide initiative that provides funding to schools to help cover costs for peer
observation (California Department of Education, n.d.). Schools may opt into
this voluntary program intended to improve teacher quality through formative
assessment methods. In addition to California, similar programs exist in Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio (Koppich, 2005; Kumrow
& Dahlen, 2002; Peterson et al., 2003).
In Florida, information from peer reviews contributes to formative and
summative evaluations of teachers. The Professional Assessment and
Comprehensive Evaluation System, or PACES, is designed to encourage teacher
professional growth (Davis, Pool, & Mits-Cash, 2000). Peer observations and
35
collaborative work with colleagues are included to assess teacher quality and to
contribute to summative decisions regarding hiring and dismissal.
The Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, is another example of peer
review that is being used in numerous schools in Washington, DC (Toch &
Rothman, 2008). Under the TAP system, teachers are evaluated by experienced
or mentor teachers, using Danielson’s Framework for Effective Teaching
(2007). The scores from the different evaluations are compiled into an annual
performance rating. Schools that use the TAP system are linked through a
Performance Appraisal Management System, which allows schools to compare
evaluation trends.
Past research has identified various challenges in using peer observations
as part of the teacher evaluation process. Some unions have opposed peer
evaluation in favor of administrative evaluation, due to ethics violations
concerning conflicts of interest (Murray & Grant, 1998; Peterson, Kelly, &
Caskey, 2002). The unions strongly believe that teachers should support one an
other, not evaluate one another. Defensiveness amongst teachers may increase
and defeat the purpose of collaborative assistance (Milanowski, 2006). Other
arguments against peer review involve the training of teacher evaluators and the
validity and reliability of the information garnered (Kumrow & Dahlen, 2002).
Schools must agree on performance behavior ratings and teachers must have
proper training in conducting the evaluation. Further, funding for adequate
36
training and to release teachers from classrooms to provide peer assistance can
be costly (Kumro & Dahlen, 2002). Thus, peer evaluation programs require
substantial financial investment and must be sustainable.
In sum, peer review can be a powerful tool in teacher and school
improvement, despite the numerous challenges associated with implementation.
Such programs encourage mentorship, collaboration and increased
professionalism among teachers (Davis et al., 2000; Milanowski, 2006; Murray
& Grant, 1998; Peterson et al., 2003). Finally, peer review introduces
participants other than administrators into the evaluation process, which
researchers have concluded fosters shared decision-making and collective
accountability (Peterson et al., 2003).

Student-Achievement data
The most widely contested component of alternative evaluation systems
is the use of student-achievement data to determine teacher effectiveness
(Hershbergberg & Lea-Kruger, 2007). Proponents argue that if teachers have
the responsibility to enhance student learning, then success should be
demonstrated using outcome-based measures. Nye, Konstantopoulos and
Hedges (2004) found that teachers performance accounted for 12% to 14% of
the variance in math achievement and 7% of the variance in reading
achievement for students in low-socioeconomic schools. If teacher performance
37
has a substantial influence on student achievement, then the outcome measures
of student achievement should be incorporated into summative decision-making
regarding teacher performance.
On the other hand, opponents raise issues of validity, utility, and fairness
when student-achievement data are used to make high-stakes decisions
regarding teachers’ pay or employment (Hershberg & Lea-Kruger, 2006). First,
opponents argue that achievement tests, alone, do not measure all areas of the
curriculum. They further identify a host of factors outside of the classroom
environment that affect the learning process (e.g., parents’ education levels and
socio-economic status). Teachers and teacher unions challenge the fairness of
using student achievement in teacher evaluation, since the data does not reflect
variations in classroom demographics, nor are all standardized tests aligned to
the curriculum (Desander, 2000; Popham, 2003; Webb & Norton, 2003).
Finally, opponents suggest that the use of student-achievement data in teacher
evaluation fosters competition between teachers rather than collaboration, as
teachers vie for higher student-achievement scores (Ballou, 2001; Hershberg &
Lea-Kruger, 2006).
Despite these concerns, the number of schools using student-
achievement data for both formative and summative evaluation of teachers has
increased in recent years (Gallagher, 2004; Lasley, Siedentop, & Yinger, 2006;
Milanowski, 2004; Odden, 2003; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Known as value-
38
added models, these plans incorporate teacher performance and student-
achievement data into the accountability measures and decisions of professional
growth in teacher evaluation systems (Odden, 2003). For example, the
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, which has been in existence for
more than 10 years, uses an extensive database of student records to document
student progress and create professional goals for teachers (Tucker & Stronge,
2005). Using statistical formulas, predicted annual gains are generated for each
individual student, based on their current performance and demographic data.
Teachers are expected to meet these gains through professional development and
quality teaching, based on the state’s Framework for Evaluation and
Professional Growth. Teachers meet with their Principals to create their
individual growth plan, which is used along with cognitive coaching,
cooperative teaching-related projects, and classroom observations in overall
teacher evaluation (Carey, 2004; Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
In Oregon, a similar value-added model is being implemented to assess
teacher competency and determine licensure. Known as the Oregon Teacher
Work Sample Methodology, the program uses pre- and post-assessment
procedures to calculate an Index of Pupil Growth to indicate student gains
(Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Teacher work samples are compiled to include
student background information, lesson plans, assessment plans, student work
samples, and teacher reflections. Teachers analyze their own work samples to
39
determine effectiveness and areas for professional growth. Although the
program is currently being used for licensure only, it has promise for
determining teacher effectiveness in regards to evaluation (Tucker & Stronge,
2005).
Value-added models are useful for identifying the qualities of effective
teachers (Tucker & Stronge, 2005), as well as teachers who are effective at
increasing student achievement (Carey, 2004). If increased student achievement
is a school goal, then value-added systems help identify teachers who are
successful. Proponents suggest that such systems can motivate other teachers to
be high-performing which, in turn, helps sustain a quality teacher workforce.
Other proponents believe that value-added models can be effectively
incorporated into standards-based systems to implement pay-for-performance
plans in which teachers are evaluated using inputs (knowledge and skills) and
outputs (student-achievement data) (Hershberg & Lea-Kruger, 2007).
Aside from the positives associated with value-added models,
researchers have identified challenges to the implementation of effective value-
added models. Questions of validity, utility, and fairness arise frequently,
particularly with respect to how well the data portray overall teacher
performance (Ballou, 2001). Tests must align to the curriculum and student
demographics must be factored in, as suggested earlier. Finally, a commonly
accepted procedure is needed to predict student gains, such as the system
40
developed by the University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). In light of these challenges and
the controversies associated with them, the use of student-achievement data in
teacher evaluation systems is minimal, due to the potential value in determining
teacher effectiveness.

Other, Less Widely Used Components:
Self-Evaluation, Surveys, and Portfolios
Proponents of effective teacher evaluation systems generally agree that
multiple measures are necessary for making accurate decisions about teacher
improvement and employment (Danielson, 2007; Peterson & Peterson, 2006).
The most common measures of teacher performance were described earlier in
the chapter. To a lesser extent, research has also been undertaken to evaluate the
use of self-evaluation, surveys, and teacher portfolios in assessing teacher
performance. The remainder of this chapter examines the use of these data
sources in teacher evaluation systems.
Self-Evaluation. Teacher self-assessment can be a powerful tool for
facilitating professional growth, achievement, and accountability (Ross &
Bruce, 2007). An agreed-upon set of standards and competencies is used as a
tool for self-reflection, in which teachers can focus on their practice and make
decisions for improvement (Danielson, 2007). Schools must allocate the
41
necessary time and resources to allow teachers to become trained and to
complete effective self-evaluations. Commitment and responsibility on the part
of the teacher are also required (Airasian & Gullickson, 2006).
Parent and Student Surveys. Some schools, especially schools of choice,
consider parents and students their clients. This view has led to the development
of student and parent satisfaction surveys as another tool collecting data
regarding teacher effectiveness (Stronge & Ostrander, 2007; Wohlstetter,
Nayfack & Mora-Flores, 2007). Data from student surveys and questionnaires
can be highly reliable due to the large numbers of students as reporters
(Peterson, 2000). On the other hand, teachers may try to influence students in
their completion of such data reports (Peterson, 2000). With respect to parent
surveys (Wohlstetter, Nayfack & Mora-Flores, 2007), there is the issue of low
response rates and whether schools are getting a representative view of the
opinion of all parents or the opinions of a select vocal few. In the end, when
teachers do not trust data from parent and student surveys, changes in teacher
behavior will be unlikely to occur.
Portfolios. Teacher portfolios are another tool sometimes used in
evaluation systems. Portfolios usually consist of philosophy statements, lesson
plans, samples of student work, professional activities accomplished, parent
communication logs, credential documents, and any other artifacts that reflect
the complexities of teaching (Beck & Weiland, 2001; Peterson, 2000). Teacher
42
portfolios have both formative and summative decision-making value. They can
be used for employment, assessment, and learning (Beck & Weiland, 2001).
The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards uses portfolios as part
of their assessment for the National Board Certification process (Beck &
Weiland, 2001). Teach for America candidates also use portfolios to
demonstrate their performance through a collection of multiple strands of data,
such as compilations of student goals, a report of teaching philosophy, and
practice, lesson plans, and Principal evaluations. (Oakley, 1998; Tucker,
Stronge, Gareis, & Beers, 2003). Supporters of teacher portfolios view them as
tools to foster professional development, encourage reflection, and assist
teachers in aligning performance with school goals (St. Maurice & Shaw, 2004).
Administrators in favor of portfolios appreciate the documentation and data
found in a single source of information (St. Maurice & Shaw, 2004).
Opponents, however, criticize the open-ended nature of portfolios and
the lack of inter-rater reliability. Portfolios can be quite cumbersome, requiring
substantial time to review and considerable space to store. Additionally,
because they tend to be less structured, portfolios may not present a
comprehensive view of the person evaluated (Peterson, 2000). Furthermore,
because ratings depend on individual highly subjective judgments, some
teachers tend not to trust the results, which, of course, impedes their
effectiveness for bringing about change.
43
In a study of teacher portfolios in the Williamsburg-James City County
school district in Virginia, Tucker, et al. (2003) found that a number of teachers
did not find portfolios useful for self-reflection and so they were not effective at
changing behavior. While portfolios are more commonly used in hiring
decisions, they are less commonly used in employee evaluation (St. Maurice &
Shaw, 2004).

Conclusion
Comprehensive teacher evaluation systems can include a variety of
components such as standards-based competencies, administrator observations,
peer review, student-achievement data, self-assessment tools, parent and student
surveys, and teacher portfolios. The most successful systems improve teacher
quality. Known as learner-centered systems, such programs are designed to
identify strengths and areas in need of professional development (Ovando,
2001). Inputs are balanced with student learning outcomes to link professional
growth to professional accountability (Mayer, 2005). The evaluation processes,
which include both formative and summative components, are ongoing, with the
primary purpose of continuous improvement for both the teacher and for the
school.
Additionally, comprehensive teacher evaluation systems use multiple
sources of data. The data can be similar for all teachers or can vary according to
44
teaching experience and area of professional growth (Peterson & Peterson,
2006). The use of multiple data sources ensures that all complexities of teaching
are addressed in the evaluation system.
As identified in the literature, challenges exist in the implementation of
comprehensive teacher evaluation systems. The issues of validity, fairness,
inter-rater reliability, time, and collective bargaining must be addressed in the
system’s procedures. Staffing, resources, and funding are also necessary
elements for effectiveness and sustainability. This study investigated two
charter schools in California that were successful in implementing teacher
evaluation systems. The following chapter provides a detailed description of the
research design and methods used to research this success.
45
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the promising practice of
teacher evaluation in two California charter schools. This study was conducted
as part of a thematic dissertation group that examined various promising
practices in California charter schools. Research participants visited different
sites; however, standard methods of data collection were developed and shared.
As noted in Chapter 1, the information collected from these studies contributed
to the University of Southern California’s Compendium of Promising Practices
developed by the Center on Educational Governance.
This chapter describes the study design, data collection processes,
instrumentation and procedures used during the investigation. The chapter
begins with an explanation and justification of the research design. The next
section defines the research questions and presents the data instruments.
Finally, data collection and analysis is described and explained.

Research Design
This study investigated the promising practice of teacher evaluation in
two California charter schools. The investigation was designed to share
knowledge of the implementation of innovative practices in charter schools.
These innovative practices, or promising practices refer to new ideas that have
46
not been widely disseminated, yet have potential to impact the broader
educational community (Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006). As previously stated, the
new knowledge collected in this study contributed to USC’s web-based
Compendium of Promising Practices to allow others to replicate, adapt or
experiment with promising practices (Bardach, 2004; Grayson, 2007).
The unit of analysis in this study was the teacher evaluation program,
including the structures, resources, and processes. The research questions that
guided the investigation are as follows:
1. How do charter schools use teacher evaluation to improve student
achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement teacher evaluation
successfully?
3. What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing teacher
evaluation and how were they addressed?
4. What evidence exists that teacher evaluation has resulted in positive
educational outcomes?
To fully understand the implementation of teacher evaluation at each school,
qualitative descriptive case studies were used to conduct the investigation. The
use of case study research allowed the researcher to understand the complexities
of program implementation, with little to no disruption to the natural setting
(Merriam, 1998). According to Patton (2002), case study investigations provide
47
a large accumulation of raw data that is analyzed and organized to present an
understanding of a situation and experience. Through case study research, a
highly descriptive and holistic product is created, while still allowing for any
necessary flexibility in conditions while conducting the investigation (Merriam,
1998). Case study research is a method of identifying and investigating schools
that have been successful at resolving implementation challenges to achieve
program goals (Manela & Moxley, 2002). The information from this study was
collected and shared for replication to other educational settings.
There are numerous strengths to selecting case study as a method for
investigation. For example, because real world events are incorporated into the
needs of the data collection plan, the information generated is highly
comprehensive and takes the reader into the case situation and experience
(Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003). The research involves the collection of contextual
information that may not be clearly evident, in order to fully understand a
phenomenon (Merriam, 1998). Because the focus of this study was on program
implementation of teacher evaluation, the case study design offered a method for
tracking insights into the participants’ experiences, as well as an understanding
of their interactions within the situational context (Collins & Noblit, 1978). The
use of case study research also provided a general understanding of how the
programs actually worked (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
48
It is also important to acknowledge the design limitations with using case
study research. Since the researcher is the primary instrument of data, the case
study may not fully be free from bias. Theory emerges through inductive
analysis, rather than deductive analysis. Instead of applying a specific
framework to analyze data, theory is grounded in the data. Because data is
collected from a bounded system consisting of many variables, information
cannot readily be generalized to other situations (McEwan & McEwan, 2003;
Merriam, 1998). Additionally, case studies may be too lengthy and detailed
(Merriam, 1998).
Despite these limitations, the case study design presents detailed
meaning of the implementation of teacher evaluation in two California charter
schools. The focused inquiry of the case study method leads to a holistic
understanding of processes, rather than outcomes. In this study, the information
collected from the natural setting revealed how the structures, resources, and
processes contributed to effective program implementation, despite the lack of
random sampling of the program participants. According to Stake (2000), this
social construction of knowledge allows for naturalistic generalization, in which
the reader can recognize similarities and differences in particular contexts. This
accumulation of knowledge can be then extrapolated to other natural settings
(Patton, 2002), as well as modified and adapted, as needed. Since the purpose of
this study was to disseminate practice related to effective teacher evaluation,
49
case study design was the most effective means of collecting and sharing new
knowledge.

Data Collection Processes and Procedures
As stated in Chapter 1, this study was part of a thematic dissertation
group that investigated various promising practices in charter school settings.
The results from each investigation were compiled to contribute to the USC’s
web-based Compendium of Promising Practices. Because this was the second
round of data collection for the Compendium, the current dissertation group
selected and refined data collection processes from the first investigation. This
included updating and revising procedures and data instruments. The group
standardized data collection procedures by using the contents of the
Compendium to determine the types of information collected during site visits
(Appendix A). The contents included the profile of the charter school, the goal
of the promising practice, the theory of action, implementation details, resource
requirements, supporting documents and recommended resources. The contents
of the template guided each researcher in the data collection process.

Nomination Process
Schools were selected to participate in this investigation through a
careful nomination process that involved the distribution of information
50
regarding the USC Compendium of Promising Practice. An e-mail
advertisement was sent through two California professional organizations for
charter schools—the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and the
Charter Schools Development Center (CSDC). The California Charter Schools
Association provides resources and advocacy for California charter schools and
is comprised of approximately 687 charter schools. The Charter Schools
Development Center is a Sacramento-based organization that provides technical
assistance, training, and resources for individuals who are interested or work
charter schools. The e-mail advertisement to both organizations’ Listservs asked
members to nominate charter schools that showed evidence of implementing any
of the eight promising practices: adult mentoring of at-risk students, increasing
redesignation rates of English-language learners, integrating academics into
career and technical education, schools leaders’ use of data for planning and
school improvement, teacher evaluation, the use of technology to increase parent
involvement, uses of school time, and writing across the curriculum.
In addition to the e-mail Listservs, schools were also nominated through
referrals from other individuals involved with the charter movement, as well as
by the researchers themselves, based on information taken from the California
Department of Education website, their own self-knowledge, or other resources.
In order to be considered for nomination, an online form was completed and
51
submitted through the USC Center on Educational Governance website. In the
area of teacher evaluation, six nominations were received.

Selection
Once the nominations were collected, the researchers underwent a
careful selection process to identify the schools for study. Schools were selected
based on information from the nomination form, such as demonstration of
innovative practice, evidence of positive change, the potential to transfer and be
useful to other schools, and at least one year of implementation. Additionally,
researchers reviewed the school’s website and other documents related to the
promising practices. Information regarding the school’s demographic data was
also collected through the California Department of Education website. As a
result, the schools nominated for teacher evaluation were narrowed down to two.
In accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the
University of Southern California, an application to IRB was submitted and
approved before data collection began in fall 2007.

Pre-Site Interview
Prior to visiting the school site, each researcher conducted a pre-site
phone interview to inform the school of their participation in the study, as well
as to collect general information regarding the promising practice. Each
52
interview was conducted with the school Principal and lasted approximately 10
minutes. The purpose of the pre-site interview was to introduce the study,
gather background information about the Principal, and to discuss the
scheduling and logistics for a two-day site visit (Appendix B). Principals were
also asked to provide copies of school documents, such as protocols that were
used in the program implementation, and to identify individuals involved in the
implementation of the promising practice.

Site Visit
Visits to each school were conducted during the fall of 2007. The
researchers and school-site program participants scheduled the visit for the late
fall to avoid interfering with the beginning of the year activities. Each site visit
lasted for 2 days. During the visits, the following procedures were used for data
collection: an interview with the Principal, interviews with lead teachers
involved in the implementation of the promising practices, a focus group with
teachers, and observation of a professional development meeting related to the
promising practice analysis of relevant documents. The research questions
guided the data collection process. Information from each data collection
instrument addressed one ore more of the research questions.

53
Interviews
Interviews play an important role in qualitative research because they
provide insight into information that may not be readily observed (Merriam,
1998). According to Patton (2002), the purpose of an interview is to gather
meaningful knowledge from individuals in order to gain an understanding of
their experience. Because of their role in the teacher evaluation process,
interviews were conducted with the Principal and lead teachers. Each interview
was tape recorded and aided by a protocol that was developed by the previous
dissertation group and refined by the current group of researchers.
Principal Interview. The Principal or administrator interview was the
first interview conducted at the school site, and lasted approximately 60
minutes. An on-site Principal interview protocol was used to garner information
about the implementation details, theory of action, goals, challenges, lessons
learned, resources, and recommended resources of teacher evaluation (Appendix
C). Because the interview took place in an informal conversation format, the
Principal also shared her general thoughts and opinions of the teacher evaluation
system. The purpose of the Principal interview was to gather general
information regarding program implementation, as well as to understand the
implementation of teacher evaluation from the administrative perspective. The
Principal also shared information regarding the history and details of program
implementation. At Pacoima Charter School, the Principal interview was
54
conducted with the administrators in charge of evaluating teachers—the Director
of Instruction and two Assistant Directors.
Promising Practice Lead Teachers Interviews. Interviews were also
conducted with lead teachers or grade-level chairs at each site. At Pacoima
Charter School, an interview was conducted with one teacher coordinator. At
East Palo Alto Charter School, interviews were conducted with one lead teacher,
who was also the math coach and one reading coach. Lead teachers or grade-
level chairs were interviewed because of their supporting roles in the teacher
evaluation process. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and included
information regarding implementation details, challenges, lessons learned, and
recommended resources (Appendix D). The purpose of the lead teacher
interviews was to gain an understanding of the evaluation process from a non-
administrative teacher evaluator.
Classroom Teacher Focus Groups. Focus groups were conducted at
each site to gather information regarding teacher evaluation from the perspective
of the teacher. According to Patton (2002), the purpose of a focus group is to
get high-quality data in a social context where individuals can consider their
own views in the context of others’ views. Teachers signed consent forms to
participate and each session was tape-recorded. At Pacoima Charter School, the
focus group included four teachers and lasted for approximately 25 minutes. At
East Palo Alto Charter School, the focus group included four teachers and lasted
55
for approximately 25 minutes. Each session was guided by a protocol of 16
questions that addressed procedures, strengths, weaknesses, resources, and
concerns of the teacher evaluation from the teacher perspective (Appendix E).

Professional Development Observation
Data from observations provide other sources of information when
conducting case study research. According to Merriam (1998), observations
offer a firsthand account of the situation being studied and are a good
opportunity to gather evidence of relevant behaviors or environmental
conditions (Yin, 2003). Information collected from observations are combined
with data from interviews and document analysis to provide a holistic view of
the phenomenon being investigated (Merriam, 1998).
Professional development observations took place at East Palo Alto
Charter School. The purpose of the observed meetings was to provide an
account of the interactions between the Principal, lead teacher or coach, and
teachers in a meeting related to a component of the teacher evaluation process.
The participants were aware of the researcher’s presence; however, the
researcher did not participate in the meeting and assumed the role of an
observer. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes and included the
following participants: Principal and reading coach, and Principal and teachers.
56
Information was collected from the meeting using the meeting observation
protocol (Appendix F).

Document Analysis
According to Yin (2003), when conducting case study research, it is
important to collect documents to corroborate and augment evidence from other
sources. Data collection through document analysis was guided by questions,
instinct, and emergent findings (Merriam, 1998). This study focused on teacher
evaluation and documents included the school’s charter, teacher contract, faculty
handbook, performance criteria and rubrics, and timelines for implementation,
as well as sample teacher improvement plans.

Data Analysis
As mentioned earlier, case study research results in a collection of raw
data that must be analyzed and organized to present its findings (Patton, 2002).
In this study, data were collected and analyzed simultaneously, as suggested by
Merriam (1998). At the end of the study, data was further analyzed using the
research questions and the contents of the Compendium. Interviews were
transcribed by the researcher and a professional transcriber to assist in the
document analysis process.
57
According to Patton (2002), the first step of document analysis is to
develop a coding process scheme to help classify and manage data. In this
study, the coding process was guided by the research questions and the contents
of the Compendium. Each member of the dissertation group used the same
coding process, adapted to their specific research questions and themes. The
coding process enhanced reliability and consistency by triangulating information
across multiple data sources. Table 2 provides a detailed description of how
each data source corresponded to each research question. Information regarding
the description, goal, theory of action, and history of the promising practice was
collected through the nomination form, the interviews with the Principal,
promising practice lead teachers, classroom teachers focus groups, and an
analysis of the archival documents. An understanding of the resources
necessary for implementation was gathered through the interviews with the
Principal, lead teachers, other administrators and teachers, as well as through the
teacher focus groups, the observed professional development session and the
analysis of documents relating to the promising practice. The interviews, focus
groups and observed professional development session also provided
implementation details, including the lessons learned. Finally, data from the
nomination form, interviews, and professional development observation
divulged evidence of the impact and the benefits of the promising practice.

58
Table 2
Triangulating Information Across Data Sources

Data Sources

Research Questions and Type
of Data
Nom.
Form
Principal
Pre-site
Interview
Principal
On-site
Interview
Lead
Teacher
Interviews
Other
Admin.
Interviews

Teachers
Interviews
Prof. Dev.
Observ.
Sessions

Archival
Documents
1. How do charter schools use
TE to improve student
achievement?

Description of Promising
Practice
X X X X X X X
Goal
X X X X X X
Theory of action
X X X X X X
History
X X X X X
2. How are resources used to
implement teacher evaluation
successfully?

Time
X X X X X X X
Budget
X X X X
Staffing
X X X X X X X
Technology Needs
N/A X X X X X
Facilities/Space
N/A
Professional Development
X X X X X X X

59
Table 2 (continued)

Data Sources

Research Questions and Type
of Data
Nom.
Form
Principal
Pre-site
Interview
Principal
On-site
Interview
Lead
Teacher
Interviews
Other
Admin.
Interviews

Teachers
Interviews
Prof. Dev.
Observ.
Sessions

Archival
Documents
3. What challenges have
charter schools faced in
implementing teacher
evaluation and how were they
addressed?

Implementation Details:
Lessons Learned
X X X X X X
4. What evidence exists that
teacher evaluation has resulted
in positive educational
outcomes?
X X
Implementation Details:
Evidence of impact
X X X X X X X
Implementation Details:
Benefits
X X X X X X X

60
Triangulation of collected data provided a means to increase reliability and
validity through the use of multiple sources of data (Merriam, 1998).

Summary
This chapter provided a description of the study design, the data
collection processes, instrumentation, and procedures used during the
investigation. As noted above, this study applied a qualitative case study design
to two California charter schools to investigate teacher evaluation. Schools were
nominated and selected, and information was collected through site visits that
lasted 2 days. The information collected from this study contributed to the USC
Web-based Compendium of Promising Practices to help charter schools share
innovative practices with the greater educational community. The following
chapter describes in detail the implementation of teacher evaluation practices in
the two California charter schools.

61
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher evaluation as a
promising practice for improving teacher quality and increasing student
achievement. This study applied qualitative descriptive case study methods to
conduct the investigation at two California charter schools. Interviews,
observations and document analysis were used to gather insight into program
implementation and to share promising practices through the USC Compendium
of Promising Practices sponsored by the Center on Educational Governance.
Site visits to two charter schools lasted for 2 days. Pacoima Charter School was
visited in November 2007 and January 2008, while East Palo Alto Charter
School was visited in November 2007.
Chapter 4 is divided into two sections that present the research findings
from Pacoima Charter School and East Palo Alto Charter School. Each section
begins with background information of the school, followed by a description of
the promising practice. The goal of the promising practice is then discussed as it
relates to the theory of action, as described in Chapter 1. Finally, each section
provides implementation details, including resource requirements and
recommended resources for others interested in replicating the promising
practice for school improvement.

62
Pacoima Charter School
Introduction to the School
Pacoima Charter School was a conversion charter school located in a
large urban section of Los Angeles, in the northeast corner of the San Fernando
Valley. Prior to converting to charter status in 2003, Pacoima was operated by
the Los Angeles Unified School District until 2003, when the district granted
Pacoima charter status. The impetus for converting originated with staff and
parents who saw charter status as a means to create systematic change through a
culture of high-student achievement and quality instruction delivered through a
participatory model (Pacoima Charter School, 2003). With a pattern of low-
student achievement, Pacoima school community decided to apply for charter
status in order to move beyond traditional methods of school reform and “take
responsibility of solving [our] achievement problems and assume ownership”
(Pacoima Charter School, 2003, pg. ii).
The mission of Pacoima Charter School was to “create an environment
that fosters high academic achievement” among the “low socio-economic urban
population” that it serves (Pacoima Charter School, 2003, p.1). In order to
achieve its mission, the school commits to creating a quality instructional
program, maximizing learning opportunities, establishing opportunities for
professional growth, parent/family partnerships, and the reduction of out-of-
school barriers (Pacoima Charter School, 2003, p. 1).

63
Pacoima Charter School had an enrollment of 1,318 students in grades
Pre-K to five. The majority of students were Hispanic and qualified for free or
reduced lunch (Table 3). Although one of the goals stated in the charter was to
operate on a traditional school calendar, Pacoima operated a year-round school
calendar, in which students and staff were placed on four different tracks that
operated from July through June. The school employed 66 teachers and 4
administrators, including the out-of-classroom certificated personnel, such as
grade-level coordinators. Teachers were members of United Teachers Los
Angeles, the teachers’ union in Los Angeles. The Executive Director handled
all school business operations, while the Director of Instruction was in charge of
all aspects of the instructional program. Pacoima also had two Assistant
Directors who assisted with operations and instruction. Additionally, the
Director of Instruction oversaw a team of grade-level out-of-classroom
coordinators whose primary responsibility was to support teachers. Table 3
summarizes the demographic profile of Pacoima Charter School.

Description of Teacher Evaluation
The teacher evaluation system at Pacoima Charter School consisted of an
optional group informational meeting at the beginning of the year for all staff, an
initial planning conference, classroom observations and visits, a mid-year
conference, and a final evaluation at the end of the year.

64
Table 3

Demographic Profile of Pacoima Charter School (2006-2007)

Variable Descriptor

Charter Status Conversion

Charter authorizer Los Angeles Unified School District

Year chartered 2003

Grades served: Pre-K to 5

Students served: 1,318

Student population
Ethnicity African American: 2.3% (30)
Asian: 0.1% (1)
Hispanic: 96.6% (1,273)
White: 0.4% (5)
American Indian: 0.1% (1)
Pacific Islander: 0.2% (2)
Filipino: 0.3% (4)
Multiple/No Response: 0.2% (2)
Special populations Free/Reduced-Price Lunch: 99.5% (1,311)
Students with disabilities: 8% (111)
English Language Learners: 73.4%
(967)

Number of full-time administrators 4
Out of the classroom personnel 10
Number of teachers 66
Teachers in a collective
bargaining unit Yes

Per-pupil spending $8,113

Type of school Site-based

Web site Pacoimacharter.org

65
New teachers and non-permanent teachers—teachers who had worked at
Pacoima for less than 3 years—participated in the evaluation process every year,
while tenured teachers—teachers who were on permanent status—were
evaluated once every 3 years. Each component of the evaluation system is
described below.

Optional Informational Meeting
At the beginning of the year, the Director of Instruction conducts a
meeting for any staff members interested in learning more about the process of
the evaluation system. Since most returning teachers were aware of the process,
the meeting was optional. During this meeting, the teachers were given an
initial planning sheet and worksheet. The worksheet was used to help teachers
reflect on their overarching professional goals by asking them to create a
BHAG—a “big, hairy audacious goal that is almost unlikely in being met but
can be met through great effort” (Appendix G). An example of a BHAG is
increasing student achievement by a certain percentage for all students or for a
specific population of students, such as English-Language Learners or Special-
Education students. The worksheet also asks teachers to list the type of support
needed to attain the big goal.
The initial planning sheet was used to create objectives and strategies
towards meeting the big goal, using the California Standards for the Teaching

66
Profession (see Appendix H). Examples of such objectives include the use of
effective classroom strategies, differentiating lessons to meet diverse students’
needs, increasing communication with parents, or attending professional
development workshops. During the optional information meeting, the Director
of Instruction carefully explains how to fill out the planning worksheet and sheet
and answers any questions or concerns that may arise with the evaluation
system.

Initial Planning Conference
Once teachers have completed the initial planning sheets, they must meet
with their administrative evaluator for a planning conference. The evaluators
consist of the Director of Instruction, Assistant Director of Instruction and
Operations, and Assistant Director of Instruction and Business. The Director of
Instruction assigns each teacher to an administrator for evaluation. Substitute
coverage was arranged so that teachers can meet with them during the school
day and to ensure that all planning conferences were conducted in a timely
manner at the beginning of the year. Planning conferences last approximately
20 to 30 minutes. Teachers bring their completed initial planning sheets and
discuss their professional goals for the year with their respective administrator.
During the planning conference, the teacher and administrator discuss the areas

67
in need of improvement and brainstorm strategies to help teachers achieve their
professional goals.

Classroom Observations and Visits
Once the initial planning sheet was completed, administrators use the
information to focus observations when they visit classrooms. Most classroom
visits were unscheduled, so that the administrators can gather anecdotal
observations of what was actually happening in the classroom on a day-by-day
basis. During some observations, the administrators use various forms to collect
data and leave feedback. This feedback can include a timeline for
implementation or suggested resources for teachers to utilize in order to improve
in a particular area. At other times, the classroom visits were just drop-in
opportunities, in which the administrators receive a snapshot of what was
happening in the classroom and how teacher performance contributes to the big
picture of achieving the goals of the school.
Grade-level coordinators also visit classrooms regularly. The
coordinator visits were non-evaluative and were intended to help teachers meet
their professional goals, as well as help meet the school-wide goals.
Coordinators were also known as coaches, and they meet with teachers weekly
to discuss instruction and student-achievement data. Additionally, when
administrators observe teaching behavior that was of concern, the administrators

68
inform the coordinators who then make regular visits to certain classrooms to
help teachers improve in a specific area. While the coordinator visits do not
play a formal role in the evaluation, they have an indirect affect on the
evaluation since they help teachers improve their professional practice and
simultaneously assist administrators with maintaining the instructional program.

Mid-Year Conference
The mid-year conference between administrators and teachers took place
in mid-January. Substitute coverage was once again provided for all teachers in
order to conduct the meetings during the school day. During the mid-year
conference, the teacher and administrator reflect on the initial planning sheet and
teacher performance in relation to accomplishing each goal. Administrators
share their anecdotal feedback and observation forms, and teachers present any
evidence or information that supports progress towards their goals. Any
additional challenges or constraints were discussed in the mid-year conference
in order for the administrators to determine how they can best support teachers
in meeting their professional goals.

Final Evaluation Conference
The final evaluation takes place at the end of the school year. During
this meeting, the administrators give the teachers the final evaluation, which

69
includes scores of 3, 2, or 1 on a Teacher Performance Appraisal Matrix, based
on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (Appendix I). “Three”
denotes that a teacher exceeds expectations, while “two” indicates that a teacher
meets expectations and “one” indicates that a teacher needs to improve.

Goal of the Teacher Evaluation System
The main goal of the teacher evaluation system was to increase student
achievement through effective classroom teaching and teacher reflection. By
allowing multiple opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice, teachers
become “better teachers and have a greater effect on student achievement”
(Director of Instruction, personal communication, November 7, 2007). Figure 2
describes how the teacher evaluation process links to student achievement:
According to the Director of Instruction, the process was not punitive nor
was it a means for documenting teacher performance with negative evaluations.
Instead, the intention was for teachers to reflect and learn and for administrators
to guide teachers towards ways they can become better teachers.
This self-reflection has led to more effective instruction, which has
translated into higher student achievement as measured by test scores.

70

Figure 2. Theory of Action—How Pacoima Charter School Leads to Higher Student Achievement
Teacher and
Administrator
creates
individualized
professional
goals
Administrators and
coordinators visit
classrooms and leave
feedback based on
teacher goals and school
wide goals
Teacher reflects
on practice and
makes changes,
as needed.
Increased Student Achievement
Mid-Year
Conference to
discuss teacher’s
progress towards
goals
Teacher reflects
on practice and
makes changes,
as needed.
Administrators and
coordinators visit
classrooms and leave
feedback based on
teacher goals and school
wide goals
Final Evaluation

71
Implementation of the Teacher Evaluation System
History
The system of teacher evaluation had been in place for 5 years. Prior to
this system, the school implemented the Los Angeles Unified School District
Stull Evaluation, which is comprised of one formal evaluation. Teachers were
required to submit a lesson plan for the scheduled observation and the
administrator conducted the observation during a 20-30 minute classroom visit.
Information from the formal observation was used to determine the teacher’s
final evaluation, which was presented to them at the end of the year.
The Director of Instruction, who was also the Assistant Principal during
that time, noted that one year, she forgot to attend a formal classroom
observation and the teacher was in tears. The teacher apparently had spent
considerable time preparing for the visit and even had on her lucky shoes. From
this experience, the Director realized that the process was not effective at
helping teachers improve, since visits were pre-scheduled and not reflective of
the everyday classroom environment. Teachers often told students to be on their
best behavior during the formal observations. With the support of the Executive
Director, the Director began researching alternative ways to make teacher
evaluation more beneficial to teachers.
The Director mentioned that since most teachers were familiar with the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) or the Teaching

72
Performance Expectations (TPE) (used in teaching credential programs), she
created the planning sheet for the initial planning conference, based on these
tools. She then took the form and the process to the school’s Curriculum
Committee and the UTLA (union) chair for approval. During these meetings,
feedback was given and incorporated into the process. One teacher, who was
part of the development process, noted that the new system was approved almost
immediately. Upon approval, the current form of teacher evaluation began.

Evidence of Impact
All stakeholders believed that from a school-wide perspective, the
evidence of impact could be seen in the rise of student achievement scores.
Since 2003, the school has grown each year in its Academic Performance Index
under the California Public Schools Accountability Act. Although the school
had failed to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind
Act, the administrators noted that there had been a steady increase in California
Standardized Test scores each year. It was unclear whether or not the rise in test
scores was directly correlated to the teacher evaluation system; however, the
administrators noted that each time they left feedback for a teacher, they
correlated the feedback to the school-wide database of student achievement
scores from the curriculum-based assessments. When certain classes were not
performing well, they attributed this to the type of teaching, and whether or not

73
the teacher was providing “effective instruction that is translated into test
scores” (Assistant Director for Instruction and Business, personal
communication, November 7, 2007).
Additional evidence of impact, as shared by the administrators,
coordinator, and teachers, was the change in teaching behavior. When feedback
or recommendations were given, teachers usually implemented the change
immediately or discussed the recommendations with the evaluator. The change
was documented in the observation forms when the administrators or
coordinators visited the classroom and they noticed that a teacher had
incorporated a specific recommendation into the regular instructional routine or
when a teacher implemented a suggestion and “the children perform better”
(Assistant Director for Instruction and Business, personal communication,
November 7, 2007). Teachers, themselves, admitted that the process had helped
them “take a closer look [at their] teaching,” reflect on their practice and
implement the changes necessary for achieving their professional goals and
meeting students’ learning goals (teacher, personal communication, January 17,
2008).

74
Resource Requirements
Budget and Staffing
The exact percentage of time spent on teacher evaluation was difficult to
estimate, since most of the money was in staff salaries. The individuals
involved with the evaluation included the Director of Instruction, the two
Assistant Directors, and six grade-level coordinators who were indirectly
involved in the evaluation process. Much of their time was spent on
observations and evaluation; however, they also had other duties as assigned.
Thus, it was difficult to determine what percentage of their salaries was actually
spent on teacher evaluation alone.

Director of Instruction
The Director of Instruction was responsible for all aspects of the
curriculum and for overseeing the entire teacher evaluation process. She
determined which administrators oversaw particular teachers—based on the
administrators’ grade-level or subject area expertise—and created the scheduling
of the initial planning conferences. Additionally, the Director coordinated the
professional development necessary to improving teacher quality and ensured
that teachers received support from coordinators to help guide instruction.

75
Assistant Directors
Pacoima had two Assistant Directors who assisted the Director of
Instruction in conducting the evaluations. Approximately 30% of their time was
spent on teacher evaluation, equivalent to 2 hours per day (Director, personal
communication, March 10, 2008). In addition to implementing teacher
evaluation, they were also responsible for other aspects of the school. One of
them was the Assistant Director of Instruction and Operations, while the other
was the Assistant Director of Instruction and Business. Both spent much of their
time handling business affairs and the day-to-day operations of running a school.
Teacher evaluation was only one component of their overall responsibilities.

Coordinator
The role of coordinators was to be a support system for teachers. Each
grade-level has a coordinator, who was also known as a coach. The coordinator
was not directly responsible for implementing the evaluation; instead they
assisted and coached the teachers in meeting their own professional goals, by
conducting classroom visits, demonstration lessons, and model strategies and
teacher professional development. Similarly, when administrators noticed that a
teacher was struggling in a particular area, the administrator directed the
coordinator to provide help. The coordinators were out-of-the-classroom full-

76
time employees and were also responsible for various operational tasks such as
enrolling students.

Consultant
Pacoima implemented the Success For All language arts curriculum
(SFA) at all grade-levels. As part of the school-wide implementation, SFA
consultants regularly visited the site to ensure fidelity to the program.
Consultants did not have a direct evaluative role; however, their visits were
usually followed by a meeting with the Director of Instruction in which they
discussed program implementation and their observations. The information was
then incorporated into feedback for each classroom teacher. In this respect, the
consultants had an indirect role in teacher evaluation. They helped determine
areas of professional development and growth and assisted in focusing
observations for administrators.

Substitutes
One budgetary consideration was the cost of substitute coverage for
teachers during their initial, mid-year, and final planning meeting. Since the
meetings were held during the school day, substitutes roved between classes to
relieve the teacher while he or she attended the meeting. Substitutes were hired
for the entire day in order to allow all teachers to meet with their respective

77
administrator. Because Pacoima only had three administrators conducting the
conferences, the substitute covered the classrooms over a span of 3 days, so that
administrators could meet with all teachers.

Facilities
No specific facilities were required for implementation of the teacher
evaluation system, other than a meeting place for the administrator and teacher,
or coordinator and teacher to conduct meetings. Areas such as the
administrative offices or the school library had been used as venues for these
meetings.

Professional Development
Aside from the optional informational meeting at the beginning of the
year, Pacoima did not have specific professional development workshops related
to the evaluation process. Instead, the professional development workshops
focused on the various academic and classroom management programs.
Teachers were required to attend training on the mandated reading program
(SFA) as well as the school-wide behavioral program, called Consistency
Management and Cooperative Discipline (CMCD). Coordinators and
consultants regularly visited classrooms to assist with professional development
needs. This professional development, though not directly tied to the evaluation,

78
was a means for helping teachers achieve their individual professional goals.
Teachers attended professional development at least three times per month on
Tuesday afternoons.
The administrators also received professional development from the
consultants of the mandated reading program in order to be more informed of
program expectations and what they should look for when they enter
classrooms. Additionally, the administrators met with each other once a week to
collaborate on how to best provide feedback for teachers, as well as to discuss
any areas of concern they may have had from the classroom visits.

Challenges
All staff members interviewed embraced this system of teacher
evaluation; however, the process did not operate without challenges. Both
administrators and teachers shared some of their personal and professional
challenges with the teacher evaluation system.

Time Constraints
The most commonly cited challenge from the administrators and the
coordinator was the use of time. Other administrative duties, such as completing
time-sensitive paperwork, handling school operations, or tending to students and
parents, occupied administrators’ time. All out-of-classroom personnel

79
acknowledged the need to be in classrooms more often. As one administrator
noted, it was challenging to not let the little surprises—such as a student with a
bloody nose—distract one from visiting the classroom (Assistant Director for
Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7, 2007).
To address this challenge, administrators noted the time issue on their
own professional learning plans through their evaluations by the Executive
Director. They committed to spending more time in classrooms as part of their
professional goals for the year. Administrators acknowledged the importance of
their continued presence in the classroom to maintain the implementation of
school-wide academic and behavioral programs. Additionally, their consistent
presence in the classroom contributed to the sustainability of the teacher
evaluation system, itself.

Relationships
The importance of understanding relationships was another challenge
shared by the Director of Instruction and the coordinator. The Director of
Instruction noted that before she became an administrator, she had previously
come to the school as a college student and was hired as a Teaching Assistant.
Many of the older veteran teachers still remembered her. Because of this, she
initially had difficulty providing feedback and evaluating these teachers. The
Director admits that she still felt uncomfortable providing a timeline for

80
improvement to veteran teachers, rather than to new teachers. Some of these
veteran teachers once saw her as a “friend” and now view her as the
“administrator.” She noted that she has had to learn to continue being “friendly”
without being a “friend” (Director for Instruction, personal communication,
November 7, 2007).
The coordinator also mentioned a challenge regarding her relationships
with her grade-level team of teachers. Although the coordinator visited their
classrooms regularly and left explicit feedback, the coordinator was not an
evaluator; rather, she was a coach. In order for her to effectively mentor her
teachers, she believed in communicating with her teachers and meeting regularly
in order to be clear that her visits were non-punitive. She consistently conducted
visits and meetings to help teachers reflect on their practice and to provide the
support and resources they needed to improve. She believed that this
consistency will once again help sustain the purpose of this teacher evaluation
system.

Challenges for Teachers
An additional challenge mentioned by teachers was the ability to
accomplish all goals they listed in their initial planning sheets. Teachers noted
that they deliberately chose areas to work on that they felt were weaknesses.
They found it challenging to find ways and methods to change the weaknesses

81
into strengths, even with the support of the administrators and coordinators.
Teachers also mentioned that regardless of who conducted the classroom visit,
administrator or coordinator, it was stressful when someone came in to visit the
classroom. Teachers worked hard to make sure they were meeting the
expectations they set forth on their initial planning sheets and that others
observed the change when they visited the classrooms. One teacher noted that
this was “like testing yourself” to make sure that individual goals were met
(teacher, personal communication, January 17, 2008).

Lessons Learned
In addition to the challenges mentioned above, the Director of
Instruction shared some lessons learned, including ways to improve the current
system.

Substitute Coverage
The use of substitutes, as described in the resource requirements section
above, was integral to the teacher evaluation process at the beginning of the
year. Substitutes were hired so that administrators could meet with each teacher
for the initial planning conference over a span of 3 days. According to the
coordinator, teachers appreciated having the substitutes. It showed that the
school “honor[ed] the[ir] time of not forcing them [teachers] to stay after school,

82
after their work hours by . . . providing coverage so that they can see the
administrators during their work time” (Grade-Level Coordinator, personal
communication, January 17, 2008). The use of the substitutes contributed to
successful implementation because it encouraged teachers to view the planning
meetings as collaborative, since their time was being respected.

Feedback
The importance of giving explicit honest feedback was another lesson
learned shared by the administrators and coordinator. All individuals spoke of
the importance in giving feedback that was objective, honest, useful and non-
judgmental and that explicitly states the observation focus. When giving
recommendations and timelines for improvement, the feedback was coupled
with evidence from the observations and related to each teacher’s specific
standards and goals on the initial planning sheet. As one administrator noted, “I
want to come across as they [teachers] are changing themselves through my
influence, rather than me changing them because of my influence” (Assistant
Director for Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7,
2007). According to the theory of action illustrated earlier, when teachers
change their behaviors to improve their practice, student achievement will
increase. Administrators facilitated this change through meaningful feedback.

83
Meaningful feedback was needed to sustain the process and keep the teacher
evaluation system consistent with the theory of action.

Mid-Year Conference
When the teacher evaluation process was first created, meetings between
the administrators and teachers occurred at the beginning of the year and at the
end of the year. Last year, the Director of Instruction decided to include a mid-
year conference in order to check-in with teachers and discuss their progress
towards their goals. This mid-year conference allowed the administrator the
opportunity to share notes from classroom observations and listen to teachers’
concerns. The administrators use the information from the mid-year conference
to determine if the teachers need more support in meeting their goals. In one
situation, for example, the Director of Instruction referred a struggling teacher to
a coordinator for extra assistance. According to the Assistant Director for
Instruction and Business, the mid-year conference was a “gotcha” for himself, in
which he can “make sure everyone is successful” and “not feel guilty if someone
is unsuccessful” (Assistant Director for Instruction and Business, personal
communication, November 7, 2007).

84
Evaluation Rubric
Teachers were evaluated with ratings of a 3, 2, or 1 on a performance
rubric. “Three” denotes that a teacher exceeds expectations, while “two”
indicates that a teacher meets expectations and “one” indicates that a teacher
needs to improve. The Director of Instruction was considering revising the
rubric for the following year to include a score of “four” which signifies that a
teachers significantly exceeds expectations.

Professional Development
The need for professional development was one of the major lessons
learned with respect to the evaluation. Because the evaluation relies on teacher
reflection and a change in teacher behavior, the administrators noted that
professional development was central to making these changes possible.
Teachers not only received professional development for the mandated reading
and classroom behavior program (Success for All, Consistency Management,
and Cooperative Discipline, respectively), they received professional
development on other aspects of teaching, such as questioning strategies or
teaching English-Language Development. This type of professional
development included all staff and took place three times a month on a Tuesday
afternoon.

85
In addition to the all-staff professional development, teachers also
participated in ongoing professional development through weekly meetings with
the grade-level coordinator. During these meetings, the teachers and
coordinators discussed areas of concern and brainstormed strategies for
improvement. On some occasions, the coordinator conducted a demonstration
lesson for the teacher or the coordinator had set up times for the teachers to
observe other effective teachers.
The professional development was ongoing and the topics were
determined based on information from observations and from student-
achievement data. The professional development set the expectations of what
administrators were “looking for in the classrooms” (Assistant Director for
Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7, 2007), and
helped teachers increase their effectiveness in their performance (Assistant
Director for Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7,
2007). Additionally, professional development was a way for administrators to
“guide” teachers to changing their behavior for improved practice (Director of
Instruction, personal communication, November 7, 2007).

Recommended Resources
The list below includes the resources that have helped Pacoima Charter
School develop their system of teacher evaluation:

86
Payne, R.K. (1996). A Framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX:
aha! Process, Inc.
Stronge, J.H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great Principals do differently: Fifteen things that
matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Whitaker B. & Whitaker T. (2004). What great teachers do differently:
Fourteen things that matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

East Palo Alto Charter School
Introduction to the School
East Palo Alto Charter School (EPACS) was a start-up charter school
that was granted its charter from the Ravenswood City School District in 1997
through the collaborative efforts of parents and community members. At the
time, East Palo Alto Charter was a stand-alone charter, operating through its
own board, the East Palo Alto Learning Foundation. In July 2003, East Palo
Alto Charter School was acquired by Aspire Public Schools, a California charter
management organization that operates 21 schools across the state.
The mission of EPACS was to “provide all students with an exceptional
education that will allow them to excel inside and outside of the classroom”
(Aspire Public Schools, 2007). In order to do this, the school was committed to

87
specific design elements, such as classes that did not exceed 20 students in K-3
or 28 students in grades 4 and above. Additionally, the school had a longer
school day, a longer school year, personalized learning plans for each student,
and advisory groups, in which students in grades 6 and above were assigned to
an advisory group of 18 students who meet with a faculty advisor daily. The
group stayed together through graduation and provided a support structure for
students (Aspire Public Schools, 2007).
EPACS had an enrollment of 415 students in grades K-8.
Approximately 82% of students were Hispanic and 75% of students were on free
or reduced lunch. The school operated a traditional school calendar with 187
school days, longer than the traditional 180 school days in California. The
Principal and Assistant Principal were the only out-of-the classroom
administrators; however, the school employed a math coach and a reading coach
who were full-time out-of-the classroom teachers. The school had a total of 21
teachers, including the math and reading coach. The Principal was in charge of
the instructional program, while the Assistant Principal was in charge of
discipline. Because the school was part of a charter management organization,
most of the operational issues and business affairs were handled by the central
office of Aspire Public Schools. Table 4 depicts the summary profile for East
Palo Alto Charter School.

88
Description of Aspire’s Teacher Evaluation System
The teacher evaluation system at East Palo Alto Charter School consisted
of various forms of evidence collected by the Principal, including at least one
formal observation, weekly informal observations or “walkthroughs,” and
observations of teacher behavior in team meetings or professional development
sessions, as well as a self-evaluation from the teacher herself. The Principal and
teacher complete the Aspire Educator Rubric (Appendix J), in which they are
rated in the following areas: curriculum and instruction; learning environment;
classroom management; assessment; and Aspire values, such as collaboration
with others. The Principal and teacher met at the end of the year to discuss the
performance on the rubric based on the observations, and the teacher was
presented with a final evaluation report given by the Principal. Since Aspire
teachers had at-will employment, this report was used to determine whether or
not the teacher will continue employment at EPACS for the following year.

Informal Observations and WalkThroughs
The Principal carried out informal observations for each teacher every day and
left feedback on a Classroom Visit Form at least once a week (Appendix K).
The form included the date and time of the informal visit, the focus area and
standards addressed, a list of observed instructional practices, and questions left
for the teacher.

89
Table 4

Profile of East Palo Alto Charter School: Summary of School Demographics
and Charter Status

Variable Descriptor

Charter Status Start-up

Charter authorizer Ravenswood City School District

Year chartered 1997

Grades served: K-8

Students served: 415

Student population
Ethnicity African American: 12.2% (51)
Asian: 0.2% (1)
Hispanic: 85.9% (359)
White: 0.2% (1)
Native American: 0%
Pacific Islander: 1.2% (5)
Filipino: 0%
Multiple/No Response: 0.2% (1)
Special populations Free/Reduced-Price Lunch: 74.8% (312)
Students with disabilities 6.5% (27)
English Language Learners: 51.6% (214)

Number of full-time administrators 2
Number of teachers 21
Teachers in a collective bargaining unit No

Per-pupil spending $8,021

Type of school Aspire Public School (CMO)

Web site http://aspirepublicschools.org/epacs/

90
The Principal required all teachers to respond to the Classroom Visit
Forms within 24 hours of receipt. Teacher response could be via e-mail,
handwritten response, or in-person discussion. The purpose of the Classroom
Observation Form was to provide ongoing communication regarding
instructional practice between Principal and teacher.

Formal Observations
The number of formal observations per teacher was determined during
the walk-throughs and formal observations, but the Principal tried to schedule a
formal observation at least once a month for each teacher. According to the
Principal, the purpose of the formal observation was to identify areas for teacher
professional development. Thus, she encouraged teachers to choose observation
times or subjects that the teacher would like to improve.
Before the observation, the Principal and teacher scheduled a pre-
conference to determine the focus of the observation. The pre-conference
usually lasted 20-30 minutes and included a protocol of specific questions that
the Principal asked, such as what students should learn as a result of the lesson
and how the teacher has planned for assessment (Appendix L). The Principal
and teacher decided on which instrument was used for collecting data during the
observation. The various data collection instruments varied based on the focus
of the observation and included ways of collecting teacher performance

91
indicators; teacher verbal behaviors; time sweeps which identified students’ on-
task and off-task behaviors; teacher/student verbal interaction; teacher response
to students; and teacher-space utilization, such as how the teacher moved around
the room (Appendices M-Q).
Within 2-3 days of the pre-conference, the teacher visited the classroom
with her laptop. During the hour-long visit, the Principal typed verbatim teacher
and student dialogue and recorded teacher and student actions. Additionally, the
Principal walked around and asked students questions that pertain to the lesson.
All the information was incorporated into the data collection/observation portion
of the evaluation report. After the observation, the Principal leaft a reflection
form for the teachers to complete before the post-conference. The reflection
form asked teachers to share their perception of the lesson (Appendix R).
After the observation, the post-conference was scheduled for the same
day or the following day. The post-conference was purposely scheduled within
2 days of the observation so that both the teacher and the Principal had strong
recollections of the observation and the teacher received immediate feedback.
The teacher brought the observation reflection form and the Principal and
teacher discussed the data from the observation. Once again, the Principal
followed a protocol of questions in which she asked the teacher to share her
perception of the lesson and any student behaviors that may have contributed to
its success or failure (Appendix S). However, the conversations can also be

92
open-ended, depending on the information from the pre-conference and if the
Principal has any questions, concerns, or recommendations from the
observation. After the post-conference, the Principal and teacher sign the
observation report and both the Principal and teacher kept copies for their
records.

Observations by Coaches and Lead Teachers
At EPACS, the reading coach, math coach, and grade-level lead teachers
also participated in ongoing classroom observations; however, this information
was not directly incorporated into the teacher evaluation. Instead, the
observations were meant to provide teachers with strategies for improvement.
The coaches and lead teachers also conducted data talks with teachers, in which
they discussed student-achievement data and created instructional action plans.
The instructional action plans consisted of finding resources for instruction;
observing a coach or model-teacher demonstrate certain instructional practices;
and the creation of specific curricular materials, such as math centers or any
other form of assistance. These action plans included timelines for
implementation.
The Principal held weekly meetings with the coaches and lead teachers
to discuss all classroom observations relating to the student-achievement data.
During these meetings, the Principal asked a coach or lead teacher to assist a

93
particular teacher. Other times, the coach or lead teacher recommended that the
Principal observe a specific teacher at a particular time. The ongoing dialogue
between the Principal, coaches and lead teachers were meant to assist in
teachers’ professional development, not as an evaluative strategy. However, if a
teacher was not open to feedback or coaching, then the information may be
incorporated into the final evaluation and may be used to determine if a teacher
was invited to return to EPACS for the following year.

Performance Rubric
At the end of the academic year, a performance rubric was used to
determine the teacher’s overall professional performance. The rubric was used
throughout the Aspire Public Schools organization and was developed using the
California Standards for the Teacher Profession, and the teaching expectations
in The Skillful Teacher (Saphier, Haley-Speca, & Gower, 1997). According to
the rubric, teachers were evaluated in the following categories: curriculum and
instruction, learning environment, classroom management, assessment, and
Aspire values, such as collaboration with others (Appendix I). Teachers were
rated on specific criteria within each category, based on information from the
formal observation reports and the informal classroom visit forms. The teacher
also used the rubric to conduct a self-evaluation. The self-evaluation and
Principal evaluation were discussed during an end of the year conference.

94
Performance on the rubric was determined through a 4, 3, 2, or 1. The “4”
denoted that a teacher was “Distinguished,” the “3” denoted that a teacher was
“Proficient,” while the “2” indicated that a teacher was “Basic.” The “1”
indicated that a teacher was “Unsatisfactory.” Performance on the rubric was
used to determine if the teacher was offered employment at EPACS for the
following year.

Goal of the Teacher Evaluation System
The goal of the teacher evaluation system was to provide a system of
formal professional development for teachers that transfers to higher student
achievement. The observation cycles (pre-conference, observation, and post-
conference), classroom visits, and the constant communication between the
Principal and teacher supported ongoing teacher professional development.
Decisions about the focus of the observations were determined with the help of
the student-achievement data, although the primary focus was on the teacher’s
desired needs. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of how the teacher
evaluation system at EPACS supports student achievement:
The Principal emphasized that her role was not to be punitive; instead, it
was to be objective and supportive of the teacher’s professional development.
During the Principal interview, she referred to the evaluation as the entire formal
observation cycle—the pre-conference, observation, and post-conference—as

95
well as information from the informal observations, rather than the one-page
rubric given at the end of the year.
The Principal views the evaluation as an opportunity for the teacher and
the Principal to work together to accomplish specific instructional needs.

Figure 3. Theory of Action—How Teacher Evaluation at EPACS Leads to
Higher Student Achievement

Implementation of the Teacher Evaluation System
History
The system of teacher evaluation had been in place for 5 years. The
previous system of teacher evaluation consisted of unscheduled visits by the
Principal, two times a year with her laptop. During those visits, the Principal
1. Principal Formal
Observation Cycle
(Pre-conference,
observation post-
conference)

2. Principal Informal
Classroom Visits

3. Coach and Lead
Teacher Classroom
Observations
Teacher reflects
on observation
and implements
more effective
instructional
practices.
Higher Student
Achievement
Conference or email
communication
between teacher and
Principal or coach to
discuss observation
notes

96
spent 1 hour in the classroom typing notes on her laptop using the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession to guide the process. Teachers were
given typed reports in their mailboxes indicating the information from the
classroom visit and recommendations for improvement. When teachers received
the forms, it was up to them to schedule the follow-up conference with the
Principal.
The teacher evaluation system began when the Principal started in her
position. Prior to becoming the Principal, she was an EPACS middle school
language arts teacher. She, herself, had participated in the “surprise”
observations conducted by the previous Principal. When she became Principal,
she wanted to change the evaluation procedures. As a Master’s student in the
UC Berkeley Principal Leadership Institute, she studied ways to make Principal
walk-throughs and observation cycles more meaningful for teacher professional
development. Through her research, she developed the system that was used at
EPACS.

Evidence of Impact
All persons interviewed agreed that the largest impact of the teacher
evaluation system had been on teacher behaviors. When feedback or
implementation steps were left for teachers, the Principal, coaches, and lead
teachers observed changes in behavior almost immediately. Teachers were

97
quick to incorporate specific recommendations into their practice or seek help
from other colleagues. According to the reading coach, the evaluation system of
observations helps teachers implement more effective strategies, which translate
into higher student achievement (Reading Coach, personal communication,
November 28, 2007).
Teachers also mentioned that the system of evaluation made them feel
very supported. One teacher noted that rather than feeling like, “I am getting
observed today,” she viewed observations as “what can I learn from this
experience” (teacher, personal communication, November 28, 2007). Teachers
felt that they had the support from the Principal in regards to their professional
learning, as well as from each other. The evaluation system created a culture in
which teachers walked into each other’s classrooms and asked for help at any
time (teacher, personal communication, November 28, 2007). The teachers felt
that the system had a positive impact on the overall school culture of
collaboration. One teacher noted that “if there are goals or if they [teachers] are
having trouble meeting a certain goal, then pretty much everybody pitches in to
help,” (teacher, personal communication, November 28, 2007). “We are better
teachers because of it [teacher evaluation], which means the [test] scores are
higher, and then other districts look at us, other people in the state, we get
acknowledged,” (teacher, personal communication, November 28, 2007). The
teachers agree that the teacher evaluation has had a “ripple effect.” By changing

98
their behaviors to more positive practice, student achievement scores rose, and
the school received various accolades for their successes. In 2006 and 2007,
EPACS received an 819 and 837, respectively, on the California Academic
Performance Index, which was higher than the state performance target of 800.

Resource Requirements
Budget and Staffing
Staff salaries were the primary expense in teacher evaluation. Since East
Palo Alto Charter School was part of the Aspire Public Schools charter
management organization, much of the Principal’s time was spent on the
supervision and evaluation of teachers, rather than on operational or compliance
matters. Additionally, East Palo Alto Charter had an Assistant Principal who
was in charge of discipline and special education. Thus, the primary
responsibility of the Principal was to monitor the instructional program.
The reading coach and math coach did not directly affect the teacher
evaluation process; however, they were integral in the supporting teacher
professional development and in carrying out the Principal’s vision of a coherent
instructional program. The two on-site coaches were in the classrooms daily
and met with teachers regularly. The salaries of these two positions were
budgetary expenses with respect to the teacher evaluation and improving
teachers’ practice. Since the two positions were funded through grants and

99
fundraising, there was the possibility that the positions may be eliminated. The
Principal worked with a fundraising committee, the community, and the Aspire
Public Schools home office to sustain these out-of-the-classroom positions.
The stipends for the lead teachers were another expense in the teacher
evaluation system. Lead teachers were classroom teachers with the additional
responsibilities of supporting their teacher teams and meeting with the Principal
regularly to maintain consistency of the instructional program. The lead
teachers were not evaluators, but “cheerleaders” (Lead Teacher, personal
communication, November 28, 2007) that assisted teachers with instructional
planning. Lead teachers met with their teams weekly to analyze data, plan
instruction or discuss any concerns that may have arisen.

Facilities
No specific facilities were required for the teacher evaluation system.
The Principal and coaches used their offices to conduct pre- and post-
observation conferences, while the lead teachers met with their teacher teams in
classrooms.

Professional Development
All individuals who were interviewed viewed the entire process of
teacher evaluation as professional development. In this respect, professional

100
development time was devoted to meetings with the Principal, coaches, lead
teachers, or meetings amongst teachers, themselves. Ongoing collaboration was
an integral component of Aspire values and all opportunities were referred to as
professional development. Professional development time was also spent in
classrooms during classroom observations. No specific professional
development had been conducted to address the teacher evaluation system,
itself.

Challenges
The administrators, lead teachers, and teachers who were interviewed for
this study shared positive feedback regarding teacher evaluation at EPACS;
however, some challenges existed. Some of these challenges were similar
among stakeholders, while others were more specific to the individual’s
position.

Feedback
The type of feedback given during an observation was a common
challenge mentioned by the reading coach and lead teacher. Both observers
mentioned the need to be objective with the feedback by focusing on the data
collected—such as the behaviors of the students and teachers or the type or
number of questions asked during a lesson. When giving feedback, it was

101
important to be “hard on the issues and soft on the person” (Reading Coach,
personal communication, November 28, 2007). Teachers were more open to
listening to feedback when it was given in a specific, non-opinionated, non-
judgmental manner.

Time
Time was a challenge that teachers face with the teacher evaluation.
Although the Principal, reading coach, and lead teacher observed their
classrooms on a daily basis, it was difficult to schedule a follow-up post
conference to discuss the data from the observations. According to the teachers,
feedback given in a timely manner—such as the day of or the day after the
observation—was more effective. It was much easier to be reflective with
“immediate feedback” than with a discussion a few days or a week later.
However, post-observation conferences can be difficult to schedule (teacher,
personal communication, November 28, 2007).

Lessons Learned
Giving Feedback
The Principal and coaches noted that giving feedback varied per
individual teacher. Some teachers preferred a direct approach, in which they
were told directly what to improve, while others preferred a cognitive approach,

102
in which the Principal or coach guided the teacher in developing steps for
improvement using listening and questioning strategies (Principal, personal
communication, November 28, 2007). An example of a cognitive coaching
model is the GROW model, taken from The Tao of Coaching (Landsberg, 1996)
and used throughout Aspire. When using the GROW model, participants
discuss the Goal, the Reality of the situation, Options for improvement, and a
Wrap-up, which describes the steps for improvement (Landsberg, 1996). For
example, the Principal and teacher may have a goal of increasing student
engagement and will have a conversation in which the situation was described
(Reality), suggestions for improvement were shared (Options) and one or two
strategies were agreed upon (Wrap-Up). According to the Principal, the GROW
model was effective for giving feedback, yet some teachers would rather hear
the information directly. For example, rather than following the steps of the
GROW model, some teachers preferred being told specific strategies for
implementation. The Principal made a concerted effort to provide feedback in
the manner that would be well received by the teachers.

Amount of Feedback
Feedback was integral to the teacher evaluation system at EPACS;
however, the Principal and lead teacher noted that the amount of feedback given
during any one time could be overwhelming for teachers. During some

103
observations, the Principal, lead teachers, or coach may observed more than one
area that needed improvement; however, they were careful to choose one focus
area that will “make the biggest difference” (Principal, personal communication,
November 28, 2007). When three different individuals were observing a
teacher, there could be “too many cooks” and the process could be
“overwhelming” (Lead Teacher, personal communication, November 27, 2007).
In order to avoid teacher overload, the Principal, lead teachers and coaches met
once a week to debrief about teacher performance and classroom observations.

Recommended Resources
A number of resources helped East Palo Alto Charter School develop
their teacher evaluation system. Below is a list of these resources:
Glickman, C. (2004). Supervision and instructional leadership: A
developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Allen, J., & Heffernan, D. (Eds.) (2006). Charter schools today: Changing the
face of American education. Washington, D.C.: Center for Education
Reform.
Landsberg, M. (1996). The tao of coaching: Boost your effectiveness at work
by inspiring and developing those around you. London, England: Profile
Books.

104
Saphier, J. (1993). How to make supervision and evaluation really work:
Supervision and evaluation in the context of strengthening school culture.
Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M.S., & Gower, R. (1997). The skillful teacher:
Building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision that improves teacher: strategies
and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

105
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the promising practice of
teacher evaluation in two California charter schools: Pacoima Charter School
(PCS) and East Palo Alto Charter School (EPACS). The investigation
uncovered similarities between both programs, as well as similarities to previous
research on teacher evaluation. This chapter examines these similarities and
relates them to the research questions, discussed in Chapter 3. Since this study
is a contribution to USC’s Compendium of Promising Practices with the
intention of disseminating innovative programs, policies, and practices to
California charter schools (Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006), implications for policy-
makers and practitioners were further discussed. Finally, this chapter concludes
with recommendations for future research on effective teacher evaluation.

Connections to Prior Research
Research Question One: How do charter schools use teacher evaluation
to improve student achievement?
Although both PCS and EPACS did not explicitly use student
achievement data in their teacher evaluation systems, the primary intention for
both systems was to improve student achievement. Both systems focused on

106
monitoring and supporting effective teacher behaviors, which consequently had
a positive effect on student achievement scores. At PCS, teachers were
regularly visited by administrators or teacher coordinators who made sure that
“teachers [were] teaching effectively so that student achievement is increasing”
(Assistant Director for Instruction and Business, personal communication,
November 7, 2007). Through the evaluation process, teachers “can become
better teachers and have a greater affect on student achievement” (Assistant
Director for Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7,
2007). At EPACS, teachers noted that regular visits by the Principal and
instructional coaches “make us better teachers, which in turn . . . means the
scores are higher” (teacher, personal communication, November 29, 2007). The
teacher evaluation systems at both PCS and EPACS focused on helping teachers
improve their practice through “teacher reflection” (Director of Instruction,
personal communication, November 7, 2007) or through individual
“professional development” (Principal, personal communication, November 28,
2007) in order to increase student achievement. According to the Principal at
EPACS, “If a teacher develops professionally from the formal observation
process and changes [her] practice, then that will lead to greater student
achievement” (Principal, personal communication, November 28, 2007).
Both PCS and EPACS specifically mentioned the importance of student
achievement in their mission statements. The mission of PCS was to become a

107
“high achieving school with high performing classrooms” (Pacoima Charter
School, p. 1) while the mission of EPACS was to “prepare students for the 21
st

century . . . by helping them develop important basic skills, thinking skills, and
life skills” (Aspire Public Schools, 2007, p. 6). According to Danielson and
McGreal (2000), an effective teacher evaluation system must link directly to the
school’s mission, emphasize student outcomes, and have two primary
objectives—accountability and professional growth. At both PCS and EPACS,
the teacher evaluation was tied to the schools’ mission statements and was
focused on improving teacher effectiveness in order to result in a positive effect
on student outcomes.
As previously mentioned, neither school explicitly used student
achievement data in the teacher evaluation process. Instead, both schools relied
on standards or a framework of high-quality teaching used to identify effective
practices associated with increasing student achievement. These guidelines
helped clarify expectations, defined performance and provided content for
discussing teacher behaviors (Castles-Benltey, et al, 2005; Holland, 2005). At
PCS, teachers were expected to demonstrate proficiency of quality teaching as
defined by the California Standards of the Teaching Profession (Appendix I),
while at EPACS, an Aspire Educator Rubric was used to determine teacher
effectiveness (see Appendix I). Although research on the use of teacher
performance standards and its affect on student achievement data has been

108
inconclusive (Borman & Kimball, 2005), the use of these standards and
expectations provided a common understanding of the qualities for effective
teaching, which was essential to the teacher evaluation programs (Wheeler &
Scriven, 2006). Individuals at both sites believed that if teachers demonstrated
proficiency on performance standards, then ultimately, student achievement
would rise.
Research Question Two: How are resources used to implement teacher
evaluation successfully?
Resources such as staffing and professional development were necessary
to implement teacher evaluation successfully. At PCS, the Assistant Director of
Instruction, the two Assistant Directors and the teacher coordinators were
responsible for visiting classrooms daily to provide feedback and monitor the
instructional program. At EPACS, the Principal, reading coach, math coach,
and lead teachers were relied upon to make regular visits to classrooms. At both
sites, funding was necessary to provide for these positions to assist with teacher
evaluation. The teacher evaluation system at PCS also included information
from consultants of the Success For All program, which required an additional
amount of funding. EPACS also required funding for an Assistant Principal to
handle discipline and special education, so that the primary responsibility of the
Principal was supervising the instructional program. At PCS, funding for
substitute coverage was necessary in order for teachers to meet with their

109
administrator evaluator for evaluation conferences during the school day.
Funding for these positions was necessary to successfully implement the two
programs.
Professional development was another essential component of effective
teacher evaluation (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). At PCS, this was
accomplished through extensive professional development for teachers at the
beginning of the year and throughout the year. Teachers received professional
development in the mandated reading and classroom management program
(Success for All and Classroom Management and Cooperative Discipline,
respectively), as well as weekly professional development on various
instructional topics, such as English-Language Development Strategies (Director
of Instruction, personal communication, November 7, 2007). At EPACS, the
entire teacher evaluation system was considered professional development, and
included not only classroom visits, but meetings between teachers and coaches,
meetings with teachers and the Principal and meeting with teacher teams
(Principal, personal communication, November 28, 2007). According to
previous research, successful teacher evaluation systems improved teacher
quality through learner-centered systems, in which areas in need of professional
development were identified and strengthened (Ovando, 2001). Professional
development played an integral role in teacher evaluation at both PCS and
EPACS.

110
Another resource requirement referenced at both sites was the
importance of time. Since classroom observations played a significant role at
both sites in teacher evaluation, all instructional leaders noted the importance of
finding time to visit classrooms. At PCS, the Director of Instruction included
time for classroom visits in her own evaluation process in order to ensure that
she set aside time to visit classrooms daily (Director of Instruction, personal
communication, November 7, 2008). At EPACS, the Principal also made a
point to visit classrooms every day (Principal, personal communication,
November 28, 2007). This allocated time for classroom visits allowed
instructional leaders to monitor the instructional program, provide feedback to
teacher, and support teacher improvement (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
Research Question Three: What challenges have charter schools faced
in implementing teacher evaluation and how were they addressed?
Both PCS and EPACS faced similar challenges in implementing
effective teacher evaluation. The most common challenge at both sites was in
providing feedback to teachers. While instructional leaders have the moral
obligation to intervene when marginal teaching exists (Kaye, 2004), individuals
at PCS and EPACS acknowledged the difficulty of providing effective feedback
while still maintaining professional relationships. According to the EPACS’
reading coach, instructional leaders need to be “soft on the person but hard on
the issues” (Reading Coach, personal communication, November 29, 2007). At

111
EPACS, different tools, such as the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options,
Wrap-Up) were used to guide the feedback process. At PCS, the administrators
and coordinator communicated clear expectations to teachers and focused
observations on student behaviors and evidence (Assistant Director for
Instruction, personal communication, November 7, 2007). During observation
cycles and classroom visits, the Principal and other instructional leaders needed
to remain focused on the improvement goals of the school organization (Blasé &
Blasé, 2004) when giving feedback.
Additionally, at EPACS, the amount of feedback appropriate to give to
teachers was an additional challenge. According to the Principal, some
classroom observations generated six or seven items of discussion; however, it
was important to “choose the one thing that . . . is going to make the biggest
difference” (Principal, personal communication, November 28, 2007). While
feedback on teacher performance was important (Blasé & Blasé, 2004), too
much feedback can be overwhelming for teachers.
Another challenge acknowledged at both PCS and EPACS was the use
of time. At PCS, evaluators found it difficult to find time to visit classrooms
regularly. The Assistant Directors at PCS were also in charge of operational
issues and spent approximately 30% of their time daily on teacher evaluation.
Similarly, the coordinators at PCS had the additional responsibility of
completing paperwork related to student enrollment. These responsibilities

112
often interfered with classroom visits. To address this, the Director of
Instruction met with the Assistant Directors and coordinators weekly to discuss
classroom observations and instructional concerns. Additionally, the Assistant
Director herself was evaluated on the number of classroom visits she conducted
throughout the year.
At EPACS, participants in the evaluation system found time a difficulty
in scheduling follow-up meetings from observations. Teachers at EPACS
identified the need for timely feedback (during post-conferences conferences)
after classroom observations, but some teachers noted that due to time
constraints last year, they were not able to schedule post-conferences with the
Principal (teacher, personal communication, November 29, 2007). If teacher
evaluation was to have an affect on overall school improvement, then Principals
(and other evaluators), must make judgments where time and effort should be
placed (Peterson & Peterson, 2006), and the school organization needs to offer
rewards tied to such priorities.
Another potential challenge that existed only at PCS was the existence of
the teachers’ union. According to Painter (2000), collective bargaining and
unions have been barriers to effective Principal supervision of teachers.
Ironically, although the teachers at PCS were part of United Teachers Los
Angeles (UTLA), this challenge did not emerge at the school. According to the
Director of Instruction and the teacher coordinator, the union approved the

113
evaluation system at the school site almost immediately and then later shared the
evaluation process with the entire UTLA community because of its success
(Director of Instruction, personal communication, November 7, 2007). The
teacher evaluation system adhered with the 2004-2006 UTLA Contract and the
2006-2009 UTLA Contract, which sought to:
Evaluate teacher performance, provide assistance and remediation to
employees whose performance is less than satisfactory, impose
discipline where appropriate, and continue to improve the quality of
educational services provided by employees. (Los Angeles Unified
School District and United Teachers Los Angeles, 2006, p. 61)
The UTLA contract further stated that performance evaluation needs to
be frequent and include the “establishment of objectives” in which the evaluator
and employee “work cooperatively to establish the employee’s objectives for the
year,” soon after beginning of the academic year (Los Angeles Unified School
District and United Teachers Los Angeles, 2006, p. 62). In practice, these
objectives can be based on standards of expected student progress, expected
employee competence, performance of duties and responsibilities and
maintenance of proper student control, and a suitable learning environment (Los
Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles, 2006, p. 62).
At PCS, these objectives were created during the initial planning conference
using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Teacher
Performance Expectations (Appendix H). According to the individuals
interviewed at PCS, UTLA members at the school site preferred this method to

114
the previous district Stull evaluation (consisting of one or two observations a
year) because the evaluation system was based on specific teaching standards
and met the requirements of the UTLA contract (personal communication,
November 7, 2007).
Although the teacher evaluation system was approved at PCS, employee
dismissal for ineffective teaching must be in compliance with the terms of the
UTLA contract and was subject to grievance (UTLA Contract, 2006-2009, p.
68). According to the Director of Instruction, to date, this had not been an issue.
Teachers at PCS noted a sense of commitment with the instructional leaders to
improve student outcomes (teacher, personal communication, January 17, 2008).
Similarly, the coordinator shared that all evaluators were “relentless” in
providing teacher support. Evaluators tried to “exhaust different ways of
approaching [teachers who needed improvement]” (Grade-Level Coordinator,
personal communication, January 17, 2008). Rather than become frustrated,
these teachers “see that [evaluators] care about what they do” (teacher, personal
communication, January 17, 2008). Perhaps because of the instructional support
and collaborative culture, employee dismissal for performance had yet to occur.
Similarly, because PCS was a charter school, teachers were free to work at
traditional district schools should they disagree with the teacher evaluation
system at PCS. Despite this, most of the teachers at PCS have worked at the
school site for over 4 years.

115
Research Question Four: What evidence exists that teacher evaluation
has resulted in positive educational outcomes?
At both PCS and EPACS, the most significant evidence that teacher
evaluation has resulted in positive educational outcomes was in the change in
teacher behavior. Evaluators and teachers acknowledged that feedback from
classroom observations led to changes in instructional practices to better meet
the needs of the students. At PCS, one administrator noted that he had observed
teachers and helped them to incorporate feedback and instructional
recommendations into their regular classroom routines (Assistant Director for
Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7, 2007). The
coordinator also noted that teachers have begun to “implement more and more
of the suggestions that are given by the coaches and the administrations”
(teacher, personal communication, January 17, 2008). Teachers, themselves,
stated that the evaluation process had helped them to reflect on their own
practice and collaborate with administrators or other teachers to improve their
instruction (teacher, personal communication, January 17, 2008). At EPACS,
teachers stated that the teacher evaluation had helped them continuously
improve their instruction (teacher, personal communication, November 29,
2007). The evaluation process gave teachers the opportunity to “receive data
from a third party” which was used to address the teachers’ own instructional
concerns or questions (teacher, personal communication, November 29, 2008).

116
The objective data collection process helped teachers focus on what actions they
needed to take to better their teaching.
Research was mixed regarding teachers’ ratings on performance
standards and the affect on student achievement (Borman & Kimball, 2005);
however, individuals at both sites believed that the evaluation system had a
positive effect on student achievement. If teachers incorporated the data from
observations and evaluations to improve their teaching behaviors, then students
performed better on achievement tests. As one teacher at EPACS noted, “it [the
evaluation system] makes us better teachers, which in turn, it’s just like a ripple
effect. We are better teachers because of it, which means the scores are higher”
(teacher, personal communication, November 29, 2007). One administrator at
PCS stated that “if the teachers are continuing what they are doing that was
excellent or that was good practice . . . you see the students doing better on
tests…We have made a lot of progress on the test scores” (Assistant Director for
Instruction and Business, personal communication, November 7, 2007). At both
PCS and EPACS, student scores on standardized tests had risen and both sites
attributed this success, in part, to the teacher evaluation system.
Finally, the teacher evaluation system had an impact on the professional
culture of the school. Individuals at both PCS and EPACS acknowledged that
the evaluation system allowed for a culture of collaboration among colleagues.
At PCS, teachers participated in collaboration meetings, in which they “get ideas

117
and perspectives” on classroom matters (teacher, personal communication,
January 17, 2008). Teachers at EPACS believed that the evaluation system had
a positive impact on the culture of the school, in which they felt “comfortable
going to anybody in the school” to ask for instructional support (teacher,
personal communication, November 29, 2007). The collaborative culture at
both sites, as tied to the mission statements of ensuring student academic
success, suggested strong internal agreement over shared norms of purpose and
vision, instructional practice and professional accountability. According to
Elmore (2003), these shared norms allowed the schools to better meet the
external demands of accountability. Collective accountability has been
established at both sites and begins with the individual teacher as the unit of
action (O’Day, 2002).

Policy Implications
Both PCS and EPACS acknowledged the impact of teacher evaluation on
effective instructional practice, the fulfillment of the schools’ missions and the
rise in student achievement scores. Based on the findings from this study and
the research indicating that teacher affects may have a stronger influence on
student achievement than school effects (Nye, Konstantoupoulos & Hedges,
2004), implications for future educational practices and policies can be inferred.

118
Definition of a Quality Teacher
Both PCS and EPACS have clearly defined expectations for teacher
behavior. PCS uses the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, while
EPACS uses an Aspire Educator Rubric. Both documents explain the qualities
of effective teaching and the behaviors necessary to sustain good instructional
practice. Since teaching is a complex activity that involves various behaviors,
skills, and competencies (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007), it was
critical that the school community agree on a definition of high-quality teaching.
The United States has no universally accepted way to measure teacher
competence (Wallis, 2008), so school sites adopted their own definitions based
on state or locally developed teaching performance standards, rubrics, checklists
or a framework for teaching. These performance standards must align to the
school site mission and instructional program, suggesting that these definitions
may vary from school to school.

Role of the Principal
The Principal or administrator, plays a key role in implementing teacher
evaluation by monitoring the instructional program and providing effective
feedback for teachers. Since the primary role of the Principal is to ensure that
the school is meeting state and federal accountability requirements, the Principal
needs to know what is taking place in classrooms. The Principal must take on

119
the role of an instructional leader who is knowledgeable about instruction and
has the expertise to give feedback or recommendations when necessary. At both
PCS and EPACS, not only did the Principal or administrators have teaching
experience, they continued to pursue professional development related to
instruction and read numerous books on effective teaching. Additionally, they
participated in instructional collaboration meetings with teachers or led
professional developments themselves. Clearly, at both sites, the Principal and
administrators knew instruction well and communicated this through their
actions and behavior. As teacher evaluators, this knowledge of instruction gives
them the credibility for recognizing successful practices and providing
recommendations for meeting school improvement goals. In order for
Principals to implement successful teacher evaluation systems, training for
Principals must focus on instruction and teaching, rather than traditional
Principal preparation programs which tend to focus on the managerial aspects of
the school (Olson, 2007).
In addition to being an instructional leader, the Principal or administrator
must be able to prioritize time to conduct classroom observations. At both PCS
and EPACS, teachers were visited at least once a day from the Principal or the
administrators. At EPACS, in addition to daily visits, the Principal provided
weekly feedback to teachers. Individuals at both sites noted that although daily
school operations or responsibilities may distract one from visiting classrooms, a

120
successful instructional program requires classroom observations. In order to
assist with this, EPACS hired an Assistant Principal who handled all discipline-
related issues, while at PCS, the Principal handled all operational
responsibilities, while the other Director of Instruction handled all instructional
responsibilities. By dividing up school responsibilities, the individuals who
were in charge of evaluating teachers had more time to conduct classroom visits.
Thus, the role of the Principal is key to implementing an effective
teacher evaluation system. While the responsibilities of the Principal are
numerous and include site manager, personnel director, budget manager, and
parent liaison, the skills related to sustaining an effective teaching force are
essential to achieving school improvement goals. Successful school Principals
influence student achievement through the support and development of effective
teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes (Davis,
Darling-Hammon, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Principals must be effective
evaluators and know how to make strategic personnel decisions, allocate
resources, handle scheduling issues, recognize effective teaching, and hire high-
quality teachers.

Professional Development
In order to have a positive affect on teacher effectiveness and overall
school improvement, teacher evaluation must address both purposes of

121
accountability and professional growth (Ellet & Teddlie, 2003). In addition to a
summative assessment on teaching performance, if evaluation is to be formative,
then schools must provide the professional development necessary for teachers
to improve. Both PCS and EPACS dismissed students early one day a week so
that teachers could participate in professional development workshops or
collaboration meetings, in which effective instructional practices were shared.
Additionally, both sites had coordinators or coaches whose primary
responsibility was to conduct formative assessment by observing teachers and
providing recommendations for improvement. If an effective teacher evaluation
is meant to change teacher behavior, then teachers must be given the tools
necessary to do so through ongoing professional development.

Recommendations for Future Research
Although both PCS and EPACS acknowledged the impact of teacher
evaluation on student achievement, the literature from Chapter 2 suggested that
data were still mixed regarding teacher effectiveness and the influence on
student achievement scores. While some studies indicated that teachers with
higher scores on teaching standards did not significantly translate to higher
student achievement scores (Borman & Kimball, 2005; Gallagher, 2004), the
individuals at PCS and EPACS would disagree. Although the evaluation
systems at PCS and EPACS did not formally include test score data, such data

122
were examined in relation to effective teaching behaviors. For example, when
student test results were low, the Principal and administrators made it a priority
to observe teacher practice and to provide teachers with recommendations or
action plans.
Because of the discrepancy between past research and the sample charter
schools’ perceptions, more research is needed to determine what effects teacher
performance has on student achievement. This research should be conducted at
school sites where teacher evaluation systems are actually successful—in which
teachers are changing their behaviors to meet school improvement goals, rather
than at school sites where evaluation consists merely of one or two classroom
observations and a rating on a performance rubric. If expert teachers are the
most fundamental resource for improving education (Darling-Hammond, 2008),
then research must be conclusive evidence as to the effects expert teachers have
on student success.
In conclusion, the findings from this study provide insight into the
implementation of effective teacher evaluation systems and the effect of these
systems on teacher behavior, student achievement, and the fulfillment of school
improvement goals. Both programs focused on supporting and sustaining
effective teaching, which ultimately led to meeting federal and state
accountability requirements. The schools’ participation in this study helped
provide new knowledge on effective teacher evaluation systems through USC’s

123
Compendium of Promising Practices. Policy makers and educators will have
access to these innovations to encourage replication and improve educational
practice.

124
REFERENCES
Airasian, P.W. & Gullickson, A. (2006). Teacher self-evaluation. In J.H.
Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best
practice (2
nd
edition) (pp. 186-211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Allen, J., & Heffernan, D. (Eds.) (2006). Charter schools today: Changing the
face of American education. Washington, D.C.: Center for Education
Reform.
Aspire Public Schools (2007). East Palo Alto Charter School renewal. East
Palo Alto, CA: Aspire Public Schools.
Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools.
Economics of Education Review, 20, 51-61.
Bardach, E. (2003). Creating compendia of best practice. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 22(4), 661-665.
Bardach, E. (2004). Presidential address—the extrapolation problem: How can
we learn from the experience of others? Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 23(2), 205-220.
Beck, J., & Weiland, L. (2001, March). Teacher portfolio: Pathways to teacher
empowerment. Science Scope, 24(6), 60-63.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How
successful Principals promote teaching and learning (2
nd
edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Borman, G. D. & Kimball, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational
equality: Do teachers with higher standards-based evaluations close
student achievement gaps? The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 3-
21.
Brewer, D. & Wohlstetter, P. (2005, Fall/Winter). Charter schools come of age.
USC Urban Ed. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education.
Bulkley, K. & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to
practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 317-342.

125
California Department of Education, Policy and Evaluation Division (2001,
October). Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Retrieved
February 10, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gove/ta/ac/ap/.
California Department of Education, Accountability Branch, Policy and
Evaluation Division (2002, April 25). The Academic Performance Index
(API), A six year-plan for development (2001-2006). Paper presented to
the State Board of Education. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/.
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Peer assistance and review.
Retrieved April 15, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/profile.asp?id=792.
Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D. & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing
teacher effectiveness: Developing a differentiated model. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Casltes-Bentley, J., Fillion, S., Allen, D, Ross, J., & Gordon, S.P. (2005).
Standards for instructional supervision: Questions and issues. In S. P.
Gordon (Ed.), Standards for instructional supervision: Enhancing
teaching and learning (pp. 15-29). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Carey, K. (2004, Winter). Thinking K-16: The real value of teachers—if good
teachers matter, why don’t we act like it? Washington, DC: Education
Trust.
Center on Educational Governance. (2007). Charter schools indicators. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California Center on Educational
Governance.
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools.
Washington DC: Brookings.
Colby, S., Bradshaw, L., & Joyner, R.L. (2002a, April 1). Perceptions of
teacher evaluation systems and their impact on school improvement,
professional development, and student learning. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.

126
Colby, S.; Bradshaw, L.; and Joyner, R.L. (2002b, April 1). Teacher
evaluation: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Collins, T.S., & Noblit, G.W. (1978). Stratification and resegregation: The
case of crossover high school, Memphis, TN: Memphis State University,
(ED 157 954).
Conley, S., Muncey, D.E., & You, S. (2005). Standards-based evaluation and
teacher career satisfaction: A structural equation modeling analysis.
Journal for Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18: 39-65.
Consoletti, A., & Allen, J. (Eds.). (2007). Charter schools today: Changing the
face of American education, annual survey of America’s charter schools.
Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform.
Cooper, B.S.; Ehrensal, P.A.; & Bromme, M. (2005). School level politics and
professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing
teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for
teaching (2
nd
edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance
professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to
qualified teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College
Record, 106(10), 1936-1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008, February 25). How they do it abroad: The U.S.
can earn lessons from several nations that consistently train their teachers
well. Time, 171(8), 34.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every
classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve.
Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111-132.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005).
School leadership study: Developing successful Principals. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

127
Davis, D.R., Pool, J.E., & Mits-Cash, M. (2000). Issues in implementing a new
teacher assessment system in a large urban school district: Results of a
qualitative field study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
14(4), 285-306.
Desander, M.K. (2000). Teacher evaluation and merit pay: Legal
considerations, practical concerns. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 14(4), 307-317.
EdSource. (2006 June). Similar students, different results: Why do some
schools do better? Mountain View, CA. Retrieved February 24, 2007,
from www.edsource.org/pub_abs_simstu05.cfm.
EdSource. (2007 June). California charter schools: Measuring their
performance. Mountain View, CA. Retrieved June 23, 2007. from
www.edsource.org/pub_chart.cfm.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (1965). Retrieved February
20, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/1eg/esea02/beginning.html#sec6.
Ellett, C.D., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness
and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101-128.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003,
from http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html.
Emerick, S., Hirsch, E., & Berry, B. (2004). Does highly qualified mean high
quality? Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Info
Brief, 39, 1-8. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/infobrief/issue39.html.
Evaluate (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved April 8, 2007,
from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evaluate.
Finn, C., & Kanstoroom, M. (2002). Do charter schools do it differently? Phi
Delta Kappan, 84(1), 59-62.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.
New York: Teachers College Press.

128
Gallagher, H.A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation
system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student
achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79-107.
Glickman, C. (2004). Supervision and instructional leadership: A
developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998). Supervision of
Instruction (4
th
ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Good, T.L., & Braden, J.S. (2000). Charter schools: Another reform failure or
a worthwhile investment? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 745-750.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. San
Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Gratz, D.B. (2005, April). Lessons from Denver: The pay for performance
pilot. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 569-581.
Grayson, Jr., C.J. (2007). Benchmarking: What it is, how it works, and why
educators desperately need it. Education Week, 26(21), 33, 44.
Guthrie, J.W., & Springer, M. (2006). Teacher pay for performance: Another
fad or sound and lasting policy? Education Week, 25(30), 42, 52.
Heneman, H.G., & Milanowski, A.T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher
reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173-195.
Heneman III, H.G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S.M., & Odden, A. (2006, May).
Standards-based teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge and
skills based pay. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (Policy
Brief RB-45).
Hershberg, T., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2007, April 10). Not performance pay alone:
Teacher incentives must be matched by system-wide change. Education
Week, 26, 35, 48.
Hoff, D. (2007, February 21). Panel report is latest Rx for NCLB. Education
Week, 26(24), 1, 30.
Holland, P.E. (2004, June). Principals as supervisors: A balancing act.
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 88(639),
3-14.

129
Holland, P.E. (2005). Standards for teacher evaluation. In S.P. Gordon (Ed.),
Standards for instructional supervision: Enhancing teaching and
learning (pp. 139-153). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Holland, P.E. (2006). The case for expanding standards for teacher evaluation
to include an instructional supervision perspective. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 18, 67-77.
Howard, B.B., & Sanders, J.R. (2006). Applying the personnel evaluation
standards to teacher evaluation. In J.H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating
teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (2
nd
edition) (pp.
1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The
personnel evaluation standards: How to assess personnel evaluations
and personnel evaluation systems. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved
April 11, 2007 from, http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D.O. What does certification tell us about
teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kaplan, L.S., & Owings, W.A. (2001). Teacher quality and student
achievement: Recommendations for Principals. National Association of
Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 85 (628), 64-73.
Kaye, E.B. (2004, Spring). Turning the tide on marginal teaching. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 19(3), 234-258.
Koppich, J. (2005). Addressing teacher quality through induction, professional
compensation, and evaluation: The effects on labor-management
relations. Elementary School Journal, 19(1), 90-111.
Kumrow, D., & Dahlen, B. (2002). Is peer review an effective approach for
evaluating teachers? The Clearing House, 75(5), 238-241.
Landsberg, M. (1996). The tao of coaching: Boost your effectiveness at work
by inspiring and developing those around you. London, England: Profile
Books.
Lasley II, T.J., Siedentop, D., & Yinger, R. (2006). A systematic approach to
enhancing teacher quality: The Ohio model. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(1), 13-21.

130
Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles (2004).
Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles,
2004-2006 Agreement. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from.
http://www.utla.net/contracts/index.php.
Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles (2006).
Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles,
2006-2009 Agreement. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from,
http://www.utla.net/contracts/index.php.
Lytle, J.H. (2007, February 7). The snake in the ‘No Child Left Behind”
woodpile. Education Week, 28, 38).
Malloy, C.L. & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools:
What’s the appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, 35(2),
219-241.
Manela, R. W., & Moxley, D. P. (2002). Best practices as agency-based
knowledge in social welfare. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 1-
24.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mayer, D. (2005). Reviving the “Policy Bargain” discussion: Professional
accountability and the contribution of teacher-performance assessment.
The Clearing House, 78(4), 177-181.
McEwan, E.K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s
good, what’s not and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance
evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati.
Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53.
Milanowski, A.T. (2006). Split roles in performance evaluation—a field study
involving new teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
18, 153-169.

131
Milanowski, A.T., & Heneman III, H.G. (2005). Assessment of teacher
reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193-212.
Mitchell, C., & Castle, J.B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school
Principals. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 409-433.
Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C.D. (2002). The embedded logic of charter schools.
In J. Murphy & C.D. Shiffman (Eds), Understanding and assessing the
charter school movement (pp. 125-148). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Murray, C.E., & Grant, G. (1998, Summer). Teacher peer review: Possibility
or pipedream? Contemporary Education, 64(4), 202-204.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). The five core
propositions. Retrieved April 6, 2007, from
http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio.
National Center of Educational Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of
Educational Progress: The Nation’s Report Card, Trial Urban District
Assessment Reading 2005. (NCES Publication No. 2006-457r).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National School Boards Association. (1987). The school personnel
management system. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Nye, B.; Konstantopoulos, S. & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher
effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3): 237-257.
Normore, A. H. (2005). Integrating personnel evaluation in the planning and
evaluation of school improvement initiatives. American Journal of
Evaluation, 26(3), 348-351.
Nye, B.; Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher
effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3): 237-257.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement.
Harvard Education Review, 72(3), 293-329.
Oakley, K. (1998). The performance assessment system: A portfolio
assessment model for evaluating beginning teachers. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 323-341.

132
Odden, A. (2003). An early assessment of comprehensive teacher
compensation change plans. In D. Monk & M. Plecki (Eds.), School
Finance and Teacher Quality: Exploring the Connections. 2003
Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 209-228).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Eduation.
Olson, L. (2007). Getting serious about preparation. Education Week 27(3), 3.
Ovando, M. N. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of a learner-centered teacher
evaluation system. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 15(3),
213-231.
Pacoima Charter School. (2003). Pacoima Charter. Pacoima, CA: Pacoima
Charter School.
Painter, S. (2000). Principals’ perception of barriers to teacher dismissal.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(3), 253-264.
Payne, R.K. (1996). A Framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX:
aha! Process, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new
directions and practices (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Peterson, K. (2004, June). Research on school teacher evaluation. National
Association for Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 88(639), 60-79.
Peterson, K.D., Kelly, P., & Caskey, M. (2002). Ethical considerations for
teachers in the evaluation of other teachers. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 317-324.
Peterson, K. & Peterson, C. (2006). Effective teacher evaluation: A guide for
principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Popham, W.J. (2003). The seductive allure of data. Educational Leadership,
60(5), 48-51.
Ross, J.A., & Bruce, C.D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for
facilitating professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 23,
146-159.

133
Saphier, J. (1993). How to make supervision and evaluation really work:
Supervision and evaluation in the context of strengthening school culture.
Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M.A., & Gower, R. (1997). The skillful teacher:
Building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching,
Inc.
Smylie, M.A. (1997). From bureaucratic control to building human capital:
The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Arts
Educational Policy Review, 99 (2), 35-38.
St. Maurice, H., & Shaw, P. (2004). Teacher portfolios come of age: A
preliminary study. National Association for Secondary School
Principals Bulletin, 88(639), 15-25.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & T.S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-454) Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Starratt, R. (1997). Should supervision be abolished? In J. Glanz & R. Neville
(Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and
Controversies. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Stecher, B. & Kirby, S. N. (Eds.). (2004). Organizational improvement and
accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Stotko, E., Pajak, E., & Goldsberry, L. (2005). Standards for clinical
supervision. In S.P. Gordon (Ed.), Standards for nstructional
supervision: Enhancing teaching and learning (pp. 123-138).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Stronge, J.H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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 (2
nd
ed.) (pp. 1-23).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

134
Stronge, J.H., & Ostrander, L.P. (2006). Client surveys in teacher evaluation.
In J.H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking
and best practice (2
nd
ed.) (pp. 125-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision that improves teacher: Strategies
and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Burdett, J. (2003). International comparisons of
the relationship among educational effectiveness, evaluation, and
improvement variables: An overview. Journal of Personnel Evaluation
in Education, 17(1), 5-20.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation and
public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Tucker, P.D., & Stronge, J.H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student
achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tucker, P.D., Stronge, J.H., Gareis, C.R., & Beers, C.S. (2003). The efficacy of
portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they
make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 572-
602.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html.
United States Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.
(2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The Nation’s
Report Card, Trial Urban District Assessment Mathematics 2005.
(NCES Publication No. 2006-457r). Washington, DC: National Center
of Education Statistics.
Van Zant, S., Razska, D. & Kutzner, C. (2001, Jan) Teachers training teachers.
Leadership, 30(3), 22-24.
Vergari, S. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Education Policy, 21(1),
15-39.
Wallis, C. (2008, February 25). How to make great teachers: American
teachers are struggling to attract and retain high-quality teachers. Is it
time we paid them for performance? Time, 171(8), 28-34.

135
Waters, T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What
30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. A working paper. Colorado: Mid-continent for Education
and Learning.
Webb L.D., & Norton, M. S. (2003). Human resources administration:
Personnel issues and needs in education (4
th
ed.). New Jersey: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Wheeler, P.H., & Scriven, M. (2006). Building the foundation: Teacher roles
and responsibilities. In J.H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide
to current thinking and best practice (2
nd
ed.) (pp. 27-53). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great Principals do differently: Fifteen things that
matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Whitaker B. & Whitaker T. (2004). What great teachers do differently:
Fourteen things that matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Wohlsstetter, P., Griffin, N.C., & Chau, D. (2002). Charter schools in
California: A bruising campaign for public school choice. In S. Vergari
(Ed.), The charter school landscape (pp. 33-53). Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburg Press.
Wolhstetter, P. & Kuzin, A. (2006). USC’s compendium of promising
practices: Innovations in charter schools. Los Angeles, CA: University
of Southern California Center on Educational Governance.
Wohlsstetter P., Nayfack, M., & Mora-Flores, E. (2007, April 13). Charter
schools and “customer” satisfaction: Lessons from field testing a parent
survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Zepeda, S.J. (2007). The Principal as instructional leader: A handbook for
supervisors. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

136
APPENDIX A
CONTENTS OF THE COMPENDIUM: TYPES OF DATA TO BE
COLLECTED
Goal of Promising Practice
Description of Promising Practice
Theory of Action for Promising Practice
Implementation Details:
 History
 Time (start-up/planning time; time PP has been in place)
 Lessons learned (benefits, challenges, next steps for sustainability)
 Evidence of impact
Resource Requirements:
 Budget information
 Staffing (level and type of staff expertise needed)
 Facility/space
 Professional development/training
 Other (e.g., technology)
Supporting Documents and Materials (printable in PDF format):
 Lessons plans
 Parent contracts
 Video to support PP
 Staff development manuals
 Evaluation reports (data demonstrating results of PP)
Recommended Resources for Additional Information:
 Books
 Articles
 Web sites
 Sources of technical assistance
 Potential funding sources

137
APPENDIX B
PRE-SITE INTERVIEW FORM
School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________

Name of Interview Subject:_____________________________________

Researcher: __________________________________________________

Start Time: _____ End Time: ______ Total Time (minutes): _____

[Introduction]
I am working with the University of Southern California’s Rossier
School of Education. We are studying promising practices in California charter
schools. Through a nomination process, your school was selected as having
success in/with teacher evaluation. The purpose of this interview is to learn
more about teacher evaluation at your school and to schedule a site visit at a
time this fall when it is convenient for you.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-
based compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s
Center on Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread
new knowledge and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to
improve school performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the
annual California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to
display at your school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local
press releases.

This preliminary interview should take only around 5-10 minutes. Is
now a good time? (If not, when would a better time be to talk with you?) Do
you have any questions for me before we begin?

A. Background—Laying the Foundation

1. How long have you been the Principal at this school?

2. Would you tell me about your background and previous experience
in education?

138
Appendix B (continued)

3. How long has this school been using the teacher evaluation?

4. Who else on campus is involved with the teacher evaluation?
[Probe for lead teachers, teachers, parents]

B. Scheduling and Logistics

5. We are planning to visit schools some time this fall, in October or
November. The visit will last no more than 2 days and I would like
to speak with you again, along with the other people you mentioned
who are involved with teacher evaluation. If possible, I also would
like to observe a professional development session related to teacher
evaluation and to visit a few classrooms.
a. What month and days are best to visit your school?
b. Will it be possible to attend a professional development
session related to teacher evaluation during the visit?
c. Will I be able to observe a few classrooms during my visit?

6. Who should I speak to with about arranging the visit and scheduling
interviews? I can [send, fax or e-mail] a list of people I would like to
interview during my visit, along with a scheduling grid.

For future contacts, is it best to communicate with you by phone, or do you
prefer fax or email?

FAX: __________________________ TEL: ____________________
EMAIL: _______________________

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. I will send the scheduling grid to
[PERSON] in the next day or two, and if it can be returned to me by [DATE],
that would be very helpful.

I look forward to visiting your school on ___________, and will plan to contact
you the week before to confirm the visit and interview schedule. Again, thank
you for participating in USC’s Compendium.

139
APPENDIX C
PRINCIPAL ON-SITE INTERVIEW FORM
School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________

Name of Interview Subject:________________________________________

Researcher:
______________________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: _____ Total Time (minutes): ________

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are
studying promising practices in California charter schools. Through a
nomination process, your school was selected as having success in/with teacher
evaluation. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about teacher
evaluation at your school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-
based compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s
Center on Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread
new knowledge and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to
improve school performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the
annual California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to
display at your school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local
press releases.

This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?

A. Theory of Action and History

1. Can you briefly describe teacher evaluation at your school?

2. What is the goal of teacher evaluation?

140
Appendix C (continued)

3. Please tell me about the history of teacher evaluation at your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially
involved in developing the practice?)

4. Can you tell me a little about your role as Principal with respect to
teacher evaluation?

5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and
implementation of teacher evaluation practice?

6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful
implementation of teacher evaluation?

7. How do you think that teacher evaluation will lead to school
improvement and higher student achievement?

B. Implementation Details

8. How long has teacher evaluation been in place?

9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement teacher
evaluation?

10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is
needed to maintain implementation of teacher evaluation?

11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the
teacher evaluation?

12. How do you know teacher evaluation is making a difference?
[What is the evidence of impact?]

13. What are the benefits of implementing teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, and parents)

14. What are the challenges of implementing teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, and
parents)

141
Appendix C (continued)

15. What lessons have you learned by implementing teacher evaluation?

C. Resource Requirements

16. How much of your budget is spent on teacher evaluation?

17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to teacher
evaluation?

18. What facilities are needed to carry out teacher evaluation?

19. How much professional development time has been devoted to
implementing teacher evaluation?

20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been
conducted meets the needs for people to implement teacher
evaluation effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to
effectively implement promising practice?)

D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information

21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning
about teacher evaluation?

24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful
to you in implementing teacher evaluation?

25. Additional comments:

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are
invaluable for our research.

142
APPENDIX D
LEAD INTERVIEW FORM

School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________

Name of Interview Subject:_______________________________________

Position:______________________________________________________

Researcher:
_____________________________________________________________

Start Time: _____ End Time: ______ Total Time (minutes): ________

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are
studying promising practices in California charter schools. Through a
nomination process, your school was selected as having success in/with teacher
evaluation. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about teacher
evaluation at your school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-
based compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s
Center on Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread
new knowledge and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to
improve school performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the
annual California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to
display at your school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local
press releases.

This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?

143
Appendix D (continued)

A. Theory of Action and History

1. Can you briefly describe teacher evaluation at your school?

2. What is the goal of teacher evaluation?

3. Please tell me about the history of teacher evaluation at your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially
involved in developing the practice?)

4. Can you tell me a little about your role as lead teacher with respect
to teacher evaluation?

5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and
implementation of teacher evaluation?

6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful
implementation of teacher evaluation?

7. How do you think that teacher evaluation will lead to school
improvement and higher student achievement?

B. Implementation Details

8. How long has teacher evaluation been in place?

9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement teacher
evaluation?

10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is
needed to maintain implementation of teacher evaluation?

11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the
teacher evaluation?

12. How do you know teacher evaluation is making a difference? [What
is the evidence of impact?]

13. What are the benefits of implementing teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, and parents)

144
Appendix D (continued)

14. What are the challenges of implementing teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, and
parents)

15. What lessons have you learned by implementing teacher evaluation?

C. Resource Requirements

16. How much of your budget is spent on teacher evaluation?

17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to teacher
evaluation?

18. What facilities/technology are needed to carry out teacher
evaluation?

19. How much professional development time has been devoted to
implementing teacher evaluation?

20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been
conducted meets the needs for people to implement teacher
evaluation effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to
implement promising practice effectively?)

D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information

21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning
about teacher evaluation?

24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful
to you in implementing teacher evaluation?

25. Additional comments:

145
Appendix D (continued)

[Closing]

Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are
invaluable for our research.

146
APPENDIX E
FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL

School Name: _________________________________
Date:________________________________________

Researcher:
_______________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: ____ Total Time (minutes): ________

Participants
Years at
School

Position

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are
studying promising practices in California charter schools. Through a
nomination process, your school was selected as having success in/with teacher
evaluation. The purpose of this focus group is to learn more about teacher
evaluation at your school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-
based compendium of promising practices. The website will be hosted by
USC’s Center on Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to
spread new knowledge and innovation about promising practices to inspire
educators to improve school performance.

147
Appendix E (continued)

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the
annual California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to
display at your school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local
press releases.

This focus group should only take 30 minutes. Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?

A. Evidence of Impact

1. What has been the impact of teacher evaluation on students?

2. What has been the impact of teacher evaluation on parents?

3. What has been the impact of teacher evaluation on teachers?

4. What has been the impact of teacher evaluation on other
constituents/stakeholders (e.g. investors, community groups etc.)?

5. Was any system for measuring the success of teacher evaluation
adopted during the planning stages?

6 Are you aware of any research studies that confirm the impact of
teacher evaluation on student achievement? If yes, may we please
have copies?

B. Lessons Learned

7. What benefits have you experienced as a result of implementing
teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, and parents)

8. What challenges have you experienced while implementing the
teacher evaluation?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, and
parents)

148
Appendix E (continued)

9. Have there been any efforts to improve the effectiveness of teacher
evaluation? If yes, explain.

10. What efforts have been made to help sustain teacher evaluation at
your school?

11. What future steps are needed to ensure the sustainability of teacher
evaluation?

12. What recommendations would you make to other educators that are
thinking about adopting teacher evaluation?

C. Recommended Resources for Additional Information

13. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

14. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing
teacher evaluation?

15. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning
about teacher evaluation?

16. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful
to you in implementing teacher evaluation?

17. Additional comments:

[Closing]

Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are
invaluable for our research.

149
APPENDIX F
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

School Name: ____________________________
Date: ___________________________________

Professional Development Topic: _______________________________

Researcher: _____________ Activity Location: ___________________

Time Started: _____ Time Ended: _______ Total Time (minutes): ____

Number of Participants: _________

A. Professional Development Leadership

Who led training (check all that apply)?
`
Teacher (from the school site)
Administrator (from the school site)
Teacher from another school
Administrator from another school
University faculty member
Outside consultant (describe)
Other (describe)

1. List the names and positions of professional development session
leaders:

B. Professional Development Session:

2. Describe the intended purpose of the professional development
session.

150
Appendix F (continued)

3. List the agenda items for the professional development session.
(Include a printed copy of the agenda, if available)

C. Structure of Activities During Professional Development Session

Structure
(lecture, small group,
whole group, etc.)
Intended Purpose

4. Describe the content of the professional development session in detail
(Probes: Key terms, theories, and implementation issues related to
promising practice)

5. List materials used for the professional development session.
[Note: Collect all that are available]

Type of Material Description of
Material

6. Additional comments:

151
APPENDIX G
INITIAL PLANNING SHEET WORKSHEET 2007-2008
The purpose of this worksheet is to assist in making this year’s formal
evaluation as meaningful to you as possible. People available to support you in
having a great school year include myself, another administrator, fellow peers,
your grade-level coordinator, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Garcia (CMCD), Ms.
Thomas and Ms. Gonazlez (HEP Coordinators-Health), Mr. Jones (behavior),
Ms. Matthews (Special Education), and Ms. Ericson (Mentor Teacher).
The following are the programs and strategies that our school has highly
invested in (and expect all our teachers to implement):
 Rubrics/Criteria Charts/Portfolios
 Clear Expectations, Accountable Talk, Academic Rigor
 Questioning Strategies (Higher Order Thinking, sticky notes)
 Thinking Maps, Write from the Beginning
 Success Maker, Waterford
 Individualized Instruction (Special Ed., SDAIE, etc.)
 Success for All (the newest techniques: Targeted Treasure Hunts,
Word Power, Fast Track Phonics, etc.)
 CMCD/Getting Along Together, Second Step, Too Good for
Drugs/Violence
 Move it Math Schedule (not the lecture and book method)
 Enhanced Into English

152
Appendix G (continued)
Please bring this form with you to your Initial Planning Sheet Meeting

Name: ___________________________ Date: ____________________
1. How long have you been teaching? ____________________________
2. What grades have you taught? ________________________________
3. What are your strengths? ____________________________________
4. How would you describe your room environment? ________________
A BHAG is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal—a goal that is almost unlikely in
being met, but that can be met through great effort.
5. What is your BHAG this school year? ___________________________
6. What are your expectations of me? ______________________________

153
APPENDIX H
PACOIMA CHARTER SCHOOL
EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL,
INITIAL PLANNING SHEET

Name _______________________________________________
Last First Middle

Individuals will be evaluated based upon the stated objectives on this Initial
Planning Sheet (IPS) as well as areas addressed on the final evaluation form.
Objectives should be written in relation to the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP). Please type or print neatly.

Objectives Strategies to Meet Objectives
1. Engaging and Supporting All
Students in Learning

2. Creating and Maintaining Effective
Environments for Student Learning

3. Understanding and Organizing
Subject Matter for Student Learning

4. Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for All
Students

5. Assessing Student Learning
6. Developing as a Professional
Educator

Reviewed and Approved by _____________________
IPS Conference held on ________________________

Approved by Curriculum Committee and UTLA

154
APPENDIX I
PACOIMA CHARTER SCHOOL
TEACHER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MATRIX

Teacher: _______________ Grade: _______ Status: ____________

Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
_____Connecting student’s prior knowledge, life experience and interests with
learning goals.
_____Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to
students’ diverse needs
_____Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction and
choice
_____Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other
activities that make subject matter more meaningful
_____Promoting self-directed, reflecting learning for all students

Comments: __________________________________________________

155
Appendix I (continued)
Creating and Maintaining an Effective Environment for Student Learning
_____Creating a physical environment that engages all students
_____Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect
_____Promoting social development and group responsibility
_____Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior
_____Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that
support student learning
_____Using instructional time effectively

Comments: ___________________________________________________

Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning
_____Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student
development
_____Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter
_____Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas
_____Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject matter
_____Using materials, resources and technologies to make subject matter
accessible to students

Comments: _____________________________________________________

Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students
_____Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and
developmental learning needs
_____Establishing and articulating goals for student learning

156
Appendix I (continued)
_____Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for
student learning
_____Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning
_____Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student needs
Comments: _____________________________________________________

Assessing Student Learning
_____Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students
_____Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student
learning
_____Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning
_____Using the results of assessment to guide instruction
_____Communicating with students, families and other audiences about student
progress

Comments: ____________________________________________________

Developing as a Professional Educator
_____Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development
_____Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow
professionally
_____Working with communities to improve professional practice
_____Working with colleagues to improve professional practice
_____Balancing professional responsibilities and maintaining motivation
Comments: _____________________________________________________

157
Appendix I (continued)

Days Present

Days Absent Days Tardy

Evaluator Signature Title Employee Number

Evaluator Signature Employee Number Date Signed

(Appendix I is based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession)

158
APPENDIX J

ASPIRE EDUCATOR PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Table 5
Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Learning Environment
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Creates a
culture of
respect and
equity

Interactions in
teacher’s classroom,
both between the
teacher and students
and among students,
are negative or
inappropriate and
characterized by
sarcasm, insults, or
conflict
Interactions in
teacher’s classroom
are generally
appropriate and free
from conflict but may
be characterized by
occasional displays of
insensitivity to
students
Interactions in
teacher’s classroom
reflect general
warmth and caring,
and are respectful of
the cultural and
developmental
differences among
groups of students
Interactions in teacher’s
classroom are highly
respectful, reflecting
genuine warmth and
caring toward
individuals; Students
themselves ensure
maintenance of high
levels of civility among
members of the class
Creates a
culture of
high
The classroom does
not represent a culture
for learning and is
The classroom
environment reflects
only a minimal culture
The classroom
environment
represents a positive
culture for
Classroom environment
reflects a genuine culture
for learning. Students
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

159
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
expectations
for learning

characterized by low
teacher commitment to
the content, low
expectations for
student achievement,
and little student
persistence and
satisfaction in their
work

for learning, with only
modest or inconsistent
expectations for
student achievement,
little teacher
commitment to the
content, and
inconsistent student
persistence and
satisfaction in work.
Both teacher and
student are performing
at the minimal level to
“get by”
leaning, with
commitment to the
content evident by
teacher and students,
high expectations for
student achievement,
and student
persistence and pride
in work

assume much of the
responsibility for the
culture by persisting and
taking pride in their
work, and holding their
work to the highest
standard. Teacher
demonstrates a high
degree of commitment to
individual students’
achievement
Manages
student
behavior
effectively

Student behavior in
the classroom is
consistently poor;
teacher has established
no clear expectations;
no monitoring of
student behavior is
evident; and responses
to student misbehavior
Student behavior in the
classroom is
inconsistent. Teacher
makes an effort to
establish standards of
conduct for students,
monitor student
behavior, and respond
Student behavior in
the classroom is
consistently correct.
Teacher is aware of
student behavior, has
established clear
standards of conduct,
and responds to
student misbehavior
Student behavior is
appropriate, and students
participate in ensuring
appropriate behavior.
Standards of conduct are
clear to all students and
appear to have been
developed with student
participation. Teacher’s
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

160
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
are inappropriate,
inconsistent, or not
respectful of the
students’ dignity
appropriately to
student misbehavior

in ways that are
appropriate,
successful, and
respectful of the
student
monitoring of student
behavior is subtle and
preventive, and teacher’s
response to student
misbehavior is highly
effective and sensitive to
individual student needs.

Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

161
Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Classroom Management
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Engagement:
Keeps
students
paying
attention and
staying on
task

Primarily use desisting
techniques for
management.
Seventy-five percent
of the students are
consistently engaged
Uses two to three
different attention
strategies, but relies
heavily on one or
two. Most (75%-
90%) of the students
are consistently
engaged
Uses all five
techniques on the
whole class. Ninety
percent of the
students are engaged.
Able to use a repertoire
of attention moves
differentiated by student
and situation: desisting,
alerting, enlisting,
humoring,
acknowledging and
winning. Over 90% of
the students are
consistently engaged.
Momentum:
Keeps the
flow of
events
moving in
smooth, rapid
transitions

Able to keep
momentum going in
few cases
Able to keep
momentum in some
cases
Able to consistently
keep momentum
going with only a few
interruptions
Able to select from a
repertoire of momentum
strategies that match the
students and situations:
provisioning, over-
lapping, fillers,
intrusions, lesson flex-
ibility, “with-it-ness” and
subdividing. Momentum
is continuous.
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

162
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Space:
Arranges
classroom in
a way that is
aligned with
student
achievement
goals
Space does not reflect
planning around
instruction
Space arranged by
teacher according to a
conventional design
with no variation
Space arrangement
rearranged
periodically but
without clear
purpose. The
arrangement is
effective in meeting
curricular goals.
Space used flexibly for
different instructional
purposes at different
times, matched to
curricular goals
Routines:
Creates and
teaches
routines
Seventy-five percent of
the students know the
routines. More
routines needed
Sufficient routines
exist, but only 75%-
90% of the students
follow them.
Ninety percent of the
students follow the
routines
Consistent, clear and
efficient routines are
followed by over 90% of
the students
Personalized
Student
Management:
Effectively
handles
students with
special
management
needs
Responds
inappropriately: yells,
uses name calling, is
sarcastic, or ignores
behavior
Responds
appropriately but is
usually ineffective.
Infrequently
personalizes
discipline to
students’ needs
Regularly uses
systems such as
behavior contracts,
going to advisor,
parent conferences,
etc.
Effectively fosters
relationships between
teachers, students and
families that build a
cohesive personalized
solution
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

163
Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Curriculum and Instruction

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Knows how
subject is
organized and
linked
Teacher demonstrates
little understanding of
the subject or structure
of the discipline.
Material is inaccurate
or out-of-date

Teacher displays a
limited
understanding of
content. Knowledge
does not extend to
its concepts,
prerequisite
relationships,
connections with
other disciplines, or
to possible student
misconceptions
Teacher demonstrates
solid understanding
of the content
concepts, prerequisite
relationships and
connection to other
disciplines, but does
not extend to possible
student
misconceptions
Teacher demonstrates
an extensive
knowledge of
content. Teacher
actively builds on
concepts, knowledge
of prerequisites and
misconceptions when
seeking causes for
student
misunderstanding
Knows and
uses
California and
Aspire content
standards

Teacher displays little
understanding of
California and Aspire
content standards.
Teacher makes no
effort to learn or use
content standards
Teacher displays a
simple
understanding of
California and
Aspire content
standards, uses them
occasionally in
designing and
delivering lessons,
Teacher displays an
in-depth knowledge
of California and
Aspire content
standards. Standards
are woven into
lessons and teacher-
designed assessments
regularly; teacher
Teacher show
evidence of a
continued search for
improved practice.
Teacher actively
builds on concepts,
knowledge of
prerequisites and
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

164
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
and makes some
effort to deepen
knowledge of
standards
makes an explicit link
between daily
instruction and
standards
misconceptions when
planning instruction
Engages and
challenges
students in
learning
Students are not at all
intellectually engaged
or challenged in
significant learning, as
a result of
inappropriate activities
or materials, poor
representations of
content, or lack of
lesson structure or
pacing
Students are
intellectually
engaged and
challenged only
partially, resulting
from activities or
materials of uneven
quality, inconsistent
representations of
content, or uneven
structure or pacing
Students are
intellectually engaged
and challenged
throughout the
lesson, with
appropriate activities
and materials,
instructive
representations of
content, and suitable
structure and pacing
of the lesson
Students are highly
engaged and
challenged through-
out the lesson and
make meaningful
contributions to the
representation of
content, the activities,
and the materials.
Structure and pacing
of the lesson allow
for student reflection
and closure
Provides
differentiated
instruction
The teacher uses
strategies that hamper
learning for specific
student populations
and/or fails to
The teacher’s
instructional
practices frequently
fail to meet diverse
student needs.
The teacher
differentiates
instruction to meet
diverse student needs.
The teacher
consistently and
effectively provides
instruction that is
differentiated and
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

165
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
differentiate
instruction adequately
engaging for students
with varied ability
levels and interests.
Uses a breadth
of
instructional
techniques
effectively, as
per Aspire
instructional
guidelines
Teacher uses only one
or two instructional
strategies regardless of
subject, situation or
student need; teacher
resists incorporating
different approaches
or Aspire instructional
guidelines into the
classroom
Teacher attempts to
use a variety of
instructional
techniques in
accordance with
Aspire instructional
guidelines. Comfort
and proficiency with
different techniques
varies
Teacher effectively
and proficiently uses
a variety of
instructional
techniques according
to Aspire
instructional
guidelines and as
appropriate for the
subject, situation and
student need
Teacher effectively
and proficiently uses
a variety of instruct-
tional techniques
according to Aspire
instructional guide-
lines and as appro-
priate for the subject,
situation and student
need, and is consid-
ered a role model for
demonstration of
some instructional
techniques
Designs
coherent
instruction
(including
activities,
Learning activities,
materials, resources,
and instructional
groupings do not
support the stated
Some of the
learning activities,
materials, and
resources support
the stated
Most of the learning
activities, materials,
and resources support
the stated
instructional goals
All of the learning
activities, materials,
and resources support
the stated
instructional goals
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

166
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
instructional
groups,
materials, and
resources)
instructional goals or
engage students in
meaningful learning.
Teacher’s instructional
plan has no defined
structure
instructional goals
and engage some
students in
meaningful
learning.
Instructional groups
are inconsistent in
suitability to the
goals. Teacher’s
instructional plan
has a recognizable
structure

and engage students
in meaningful
learning.
Instructional groups
are varied, as
appropriate to the
different instructional
goals. Teacher’s
instructional plan has
a clearly defined
structure and
sequence.
and engage students
in meaningful
learning.
Instructional groups
are varied, as
appropriate to the
different instructional
goals. Teacher’s
instructional plan is
highly coherent, has a
clear structure and
sequence, and allows
for different
pathways according
to student needs
Demonstrates
flexibility and
responsiveness
through
monitoring
and modifying
instruction
Teacher fails to notice
students’ level of
understanding or
interest, or adheres to
the instructional plan
in spite of poor student
understanding or of
students’ lack of
Teacher
occasionally
monitors students’
understanding and
interest level, and
consistently
attempts to respond
to students’ needs
Teacher consistently
monitors students’
level of
understanding and
interest, and
demonstrates
perception regarding
how to increase
Teacher actively and
consistently monitors
individual students’
level of
understanding and
interest, is highly
perceptive in
adjusting lessons to
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

167
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

interest, Teacher
assumes no
responsibility for
students’ failure to
understand
and interests during
a lesson; teacher
assumes
responsibility for
student success
understanding or
interest level.
Teacher makes rapid
and appropriate
adjustments to
instructional plans
respond to students’
interests and
questions, and is very
persistent in ensuring
the success of each
individual student
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

168
Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Assessment

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Assess student
growth
consistently and
in accordance
with California
and Aspire
standards

Teacher’s
approach to
assessing student
learning lacks
congruence with
the instructional
goals, contains no
clear criteria or
standards, or uses
standards that are
significantly
misaligned with
California and
Aspire standards;
Teacher does not
use assessment
results in designing
future instruction
Teacher’s plan for
student assessment
is partially aligned
with the
instructional goals.
Criteria and
standards for
assessment are not
entirely understood
by students or differ
somewhat from
California or Aspire
standards. Teacher
uses the assessment
to plan for future
instruction for the
class as a whole
Teacher’s plan for
student assessment is
aligned with the
instructional goals.
Assessment criteria
and California and
Aspire standards are
consistently used and
have been
communicated to
students. Teacher
uses the assessment to
plan for groups of
students or
individuals
Teacher’s plan for student
assessment is fully aligned
with the instructional goals;
assessment criteria and
California and Aspire
standards are always used
and are understood by
students. Students monitor
their own progress in
achieving the goals.
Assessment results are used
to design future work for
individuals
Uses data
effectively to

The teacher does
not use
performance data
The teacher makes
limited use of
assessment results in
The teacher uses
student performance
data in instructional
The teacher consistently
demonstrates the use of
assessment results as a
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

169
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
inform
instruction
in making
instructional
decisions.
instructional
decisions.
planning and decision
making.
central foundation for
instructional decisions and
communicates these
decisions appropriately to
student and others
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

170
Aspire Educator Performance Criteria: Aspire Values

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Is collaborative Teacher’s
relationships with
colleagues are
negative or self-
serving. Teacher
avoids being
involved in school
and/or Aspire
projects or
attempts to
undermine others’
efforts to improve
the school
Teacher’s
relationship with
colleagues are
cordial. Teacher
participates in
school and/or Aspire
events and projects
when specifically
asked
Teacher’s relationships
with colleagues are
collaborative; teacher
actively initiates
participation in school
and/or Aspire projects
that contribute to a
positive culture for
learning
Teacher demonstrates
leadership that makes a
substantial contribution to
the school and/or Aspire;
Teacher uses influence
with others to promote
collegiality and a positive
culture for learning
Displays a sense
of ownership
Does not hold self
or others
accountable for
behavior or results;
makes excuses;
resists looking at

Consistently holds
self-accountable for
own results.
Responds
appropriately to
results as measured
by Principal.
Consistently holds self
and others accountable
for school results.
Creates and follows-up
with timely action plans
in response to results
measured by Principal.
Consistently holds self
and others accountable for
school results. Creates
and follows-up with
timely, robust and flexible
action plans in response to
results measured by
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

171
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
or discussing goals
and metrics.
Principal and own interim
measure
Holds self to
high quality
standards
Has low
expectations and
standards for self
and others’ work.
Does not seem to
understand Aspire
performance
standards
Understands and
embraces Aspire
standards and
expectations for
own and team
performance
Understands and
embraces Aspire
standards and
expectations for own and
team performance.
Work is consistently
high quality
Understands and
embraces Aspire
standards and
expectations for own and
team performance.
Continuously improves.
Work consistently
exceeds expectations
Is customer-
service oriented
Provides little or
no information to
families and makes
no attempt to
engage them; does
not respond to
parent and student
requests in a timely
or appropriate
manner
Consistently
responds to parents
and student requests
in a timely and
appropriate manner.
Makes an effort to
engage families in
the instructional
program. Responses
to parent concerns
about students are
Consistently responds to
parents, student and staff
requests in a timely,
professional manner and
in a way that reflects an
understanding of the
needs of customers.
Successfully engages
families in the
instructional program
Communicates frequently
with families about
students’ individual needs
and fully engages them in
the instructional program.
Deeply understands needs
of customers. Finds ways
to increase customer
satisfaction
Appendix J, Table 5 (continued)

172
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
generally
appropriate
Is purposeful Does not
understand Aspire
or school vision
and mission; works
at cross-purposes
or lacks direction.
Does not make an
effort to grow and
develop
professionally
Understands and
embraces Aspire
vision and mission;
focuses on operating
school well. Makes
some effort to grow
professionally when
participation is
convenient or
required
Understands, embraces,
and consistently acts in
ways that are aligned
with Aspire vision and
mission, not just school
needs. Actively seeks
opportunities to enhance
professional knowledge
and skills
Deeply understands,
embraces, and
consistently acts in ways
aligned with Aspire vision
and mission. Finds ways
to further Aspire’s
mission and vision.
Actively seeks
opportunities to enhance
professional knowledge
and skills.

173
APPENDIX K
EPACS CLASSROOM VISIT FORM

Teacher: _____________________ Date: ___________ Time: _________
Focus Area:
Standards Addressed:
I also observed the following effective instructional practices today:

Questions:
Your Comments: (Write me back)

174
APPENDIX L
EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER SCHOOL
PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE NOTES

Teacher Name: ____________________________ Grade: _________
Pre-conference Date: _______________________________
Observation Date and Time: _________________________
Aspire Rubric Focus: _______________________________

1. What is the lesson you are planning to teach when I observe your class?
Subject:
Standard:
2. What do you want your students to learn as a result of this lesson?
3. How do you plan to engage the students? What will you do? What will
the students do?
4. Will the lesson be difficult for any students? What have you planned for
those students?
5. How do you plan to assess the students’ achievement of the objectives?
What will you do with the results?
6. What have you planned for those students who have not mastered the
skill or concept?
7. Is there any aspect of this lesson or of your class that I should pay
particular attention to?

175

APPENDIX M
HUNTER MODEL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Table 6

Hunter Model Performance Indicators

Elements Response Observations
Anticipatory Set Yes [ ] No [] N/A [ ] No references made
Objective and
purpose
Yes [ ] No [] N/A [ ] Unstated—unclear
Input Yes [] No [ ] N/A [ ] Group discussion
employed
Modeling Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [] No references made
Checking for
understanding
Yes [ ] No [] N/A [ ] Teacher asked, “Do
you understand?” but
did not check
Guided practice Yes [] No [ ] N/A [ ] Teacher circulates
Independent
practice
Yes [] No [ ] N/A [ ] Sample sheets
distributed

Class: 10-4-06 Time: 11:15 AM Date: 9-28-99

176
APPENDIX N
TEACHER VERBAL BEHAVIORS

Table 7
Teacher Verbal Behaviors
Information
Giving

Questioning

Answering

Praising
Direction
Giving
Correcting/
Reprimanding
1 X X X X
2 X X X X
3 X X
4 X X X
5 X X
6 X X X
7 X
8 X X X
9
10 X
11 X X X
12
13
14 X
15 X X X
16 X X X

Time Ended: _______________

Class: ____________________

177
APPENDIX O
STUDENT ON-TASK AND OFF-TASK BEHAVIOR

Table 8

Student On-Task and Off-Task Behavior

Time When Sweep Began

Student 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 9:25 9:30 9:35
Tania A A AT A A A OR A
Manuel A A AT AT A OR A A
Vivian AT TK TK AT AT TK AT TK
Nurit O O P P OT O O OT
Joseph OT OT AT P A A P P
Michael OT OT AT P O AT A TK
Loi AT P P AT P P P OT
Helen A A A A A A A A
Mariceli AT A A A OR A A A
Wayne P P AT AT P P OR OR
Virginia P A A A P AT A A
Colleen OR A A A TK O AT A
Hajime OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT
Kahlid TK AT A TK TK TK AT AT
Maria OR A A A TK A A A

Key Total:
A = at task ______
AT = at task with teacher ______
TK = talking ______
P = playing ______
O = out of seat ______
OR = out of room ______
OT = off task ______

178
APPENDIX P
TEACHER VERBAL INTERACTION

Figure 4. Teacher Verbal Interaction

179
APPENDIX Q

TEACHER SPACE UTILIZATION

Figure 5. Teacher Space Utilization

Note: The diagram should be drawn for the room in which the observation
takes place.

Source: Glickman, C.D., S. P. Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998).

Key: TD = teacher’s desk, LC = learning center, CB = chalkboard,
WA = work area.

180
APPENDIX R
EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER SCHOOL
OBSERVATION REFLECTION

Please fill out this form after the observation. As soon as you turn it in, I will
provide you with the data from the observation before our post conference.

Name:
Date of Observation:
Lesson Observed:

1. How do you think the lesson went?
2. How many students met your learning objective? What evidence did
you use to determine the students’ mastery?
3. What were some surprises? What were some of the challenges?
4. If you were to teach the lesson again, what would you keep the same
and what would you change?

181
APPENDIX S
REFLECTING CONVERSATION

As you reflect on your lesson, how do you think it went?
What were you aware of in your students’ behaviors that made you think it
succeeded/failed?
How did what your students did compare to what you had planned for them to
do? (Refer back to the goals stated in planning conversation).
What did you do to cause your students to perform that way? (Determine cause
and effect relationships).
You asked me to watch for __________________. Here is the data I collected:
As you look at the data, what does it tell you?
So what insights are you gaining?
If you were to do this lesson/activity again, would you do anything differently
next time?
How did this conversation enhance your thinking?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Traditional teacher evaluation systems have had little to no impact on changing teacher behavior or improving student achievement. The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher evaluation at two California charter schools, in which teacher evaluation was found to have an associated impact on improved teacher performance and student progress.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

A study of promising practices in two California charter schools: using technology to increase parent involvement

PDF

Through the eyes of art: uncovering promising practices in arts-themed learning in California charter elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Teaching in the context of NCLB: a qualitative study of the impact on teachers' work, morale, and professional support

PDF

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

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

The impact of principal leadership on teacher retention in K-4 charter schools in South Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Morelock, Marie Lourdes (author)

Core Title Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/17/2008

Defense Date 05/13/2008

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

Tag classroom observations,effective teachers,instructional supervision,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,quality teaching,teacher evaluation

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: East Palo Alto Charter School (geographic subject), educational facilities: Pacoima Charter School (geographic subject)

Language English

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email mdacumos@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1275

Unique identifier UC1218394

Identifier etd-Morelock-20080617 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-73855 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1275 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Morelock-20080617.pdf

Dmrecord 73855

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Morelock, Marie Lourdes

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu