Research literature highlights the principal as central to teacher evaluation. However, principal reports do not provide adequate information to document teacher quality. Good teacher evaluation adds multiple data sources such as client surveys, peer reviews of matenials, and pupil achievement data, which vary by teacher and setting. Principals should become knowledgeable about pupil gain data, costs of evaluation, sociology of teacher evaluation, and the problem of the bad teacher. Teacher evaluation can reassure external audiences that schools are doing a good job.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Annunziata, J. (1998). Understanding and ensuring due process. CREATE Newsletter, 1(1), 3-3.
2.
Annunziata, J. (1999). Richard Fossey: If a practitioner cleans the windows, will you look in?Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(1), 83-92.
3.
Barr, A. S., & Burton, W. H. (1926). The supervision of instruction. New York: D. Appleton.
4.
Berk, R. A. (1988). Fifty reasons why student gain does not mean teacher effectiveness. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 345-363.
5.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1980). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
Boyd, R. T. C. (1989). Improving teacher evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 1(7).
7.
Bridges, E. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Falmer.
8.
Bridges, E. M., & Groves, B. R. (1999). The macro and micro politics of personnel evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 321-338.
9.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Coker, H., Medley, D. M., & Soar, R. S. (1980). How valid are expert opinions about effective teaching?Phi Delta Kappan, 62(2), 131-134, 149-149.
11.
Colby, S. A., Bradshaw, L. K., & Joyner, R. L. (2002, April). Teacher evaluation: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
12.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
DeSander, M. K. (2000). Teacher evaluation and merit pay: Legal considerations, practical concerns. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 307-317.
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1986). The principalship. New York: Macmillan.
16.
Ellett, C. D. (1997). Classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 107-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
French-Lazovik, G. (1981). Peer review: Documenting evidence in the evaluation of teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 73-89). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Glass, G. V. (1974). A review of three methods of determining teacher effectiveness. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance (pp. 11-32). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
19.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research 1980-1996. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
20.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: An introduction. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 4-11.
21.
Heath, R., & Nelson, M. (1974). The research basis for performance-based teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 44, 463-484.
22.
Hoenack, S. A. & Monk, D. H. (1990). Economic aspects of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 390-402). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
House, E. R. (Ed.). (1973). School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
24.
Houston, W. R., & Howsam, R. B. (Eds.). (1972). Competency-based teacher education. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
25.
Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.
26.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
27.
Kauchak, D., Peterson, K., & Driscoll, A. (1985). An interview study of teachers' attitudes toward teacher evaluation practices. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19(1), 32-37.
28.
Keller, B. (1998, November 11). Principal matters. Education Week, 18(11), 25-27.
29.
Krajewski, R. J. (1978). Secondary principals want to be instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 65-65.
30.
Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 6(1), 50-72.
31.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Loup, K., Garland, J., Ellett, C., & Rugutt, J. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203-226.
33.
McCarthey, S. J. & Peterson, K. D. (1987). Peer review of materials in public school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 285-293.
34.
Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals' judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242-247.
35.
Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 257-268.
36.
Ostrander, L. P. (1995). Multiple judges of teacher effectiveness: Comparing teacher selfassessments with the perceptions of principals, students, and parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
37.
Owens, R. G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38.
Peterson, K. (1984). Methodological problems in teacher evaluation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17(4), 62-70.
39.
Peterson, K. D. (1988). Reliability of panel judgments for promotion in a school teacher career ladder system. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(4), 95-99.
40.
Peterson, K. D. (1989a). Costs of school teacher evaluation in a career ladder system. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 30-36.
41.
Peterson, K. D. (1989b). Parent surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2(3), 309-319.
42.
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
Pool, J. E., Ellett, C. D., Schiavone, S., & Carey-Lewis, C. (2001). How valid are the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards assessments for predicting the quality of actual classroom teaching and learning?Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(1), 31-48.
44.
Popham, W.J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 269-273.
45.
Rodosky, R. (2002, July). Comparison of two methods of student gain data analysis. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute of the Consortium for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation. Boise, ID.
46.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995a). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6).
47.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995b). The Tennessee value added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. In A. J. Shinkfield & D. Stufflebeam (Eds), Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice (pp. 337-350). Boston: Kluwer.
48.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256.
49.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), AERA monograph review on curriculum evaluation: No. 1 (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
50.
Scriven, M. (1973a). The evaluation of educational goals, instructional procedures and outcomes. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED079394.
51.
Scriven, M. (1973b). Handbook for Model Training Program in qualitative educational evaluation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
52.
Scriven, M. (1976). Evaluation in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching13(3), 363-368.
53.
Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 244-271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54.
Scriven, M. (1988). Duty-based teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(4), 319-334.
55.
Scriven, M. (1997). Due process in adverse personnel action. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(2), 127-137.
56.
Spring,J. (1997). Political agendas for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
Stake, R. E. (1973). Measuring what learners learn. In E. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 193-223). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
58.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1984). Teacher evaluation: The limits of looking. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 11-18.
59.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
60.
Stronge, J., & Ostrander, L. (1997). Client surveys in teacher evaluation. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 129-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
61.
Stronge,J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (1999). The politics of teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 339-360.
62.
Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation and student achievement. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
63.
Thompson, M. S. (1980). Benefit-cost analysis for program evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
64.
Travers, R. M. W. (1981). Criteria of good teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 14-22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
65.
Tucker, P. D. (1997). Lake Woebegone: Where all teachers are competent (Or, have we come to terms with the problem of incompetent teachers?). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(2), 103-126.
66.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
67.
Wolf, R. (1973). How teachers feel toward evaluation. In E. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 156-168). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
68.
Wood, C. J., & Pohland, P. A. (1979). Teacher evaluation: The myth and realities. In W. R. Duckett (Ed.), Planningfor the evaluation of teaching (pp. 73-82). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
69.
Xu, S., & Sinclair, R. L. (2002, April). Improving teacher evaluation for increasing student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
