Teacher perceptions after 5 years of implementing evaluation protocols that were initiated under Race to the Top revealed attitudes about the evaluation instrument used and the nature of their relationship with the evaluator. This study surveyed middle and high school teachers in nine Eastern Tennessee school districts. Data indicated unintended consequences as a result of their evaluations, including impacts on relationships with principals as well as the concerns with principal time needed for evaluations. Findings imply that the reformed evaluation system is not effectively providing learning opportunities for secondary teachers who had previously been judged as competent.
AlfonsoR. J.FirthG. R.NevilleR. F. (1975). Instructional supervision: A behavior system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Amrein-BeardsleyA.HollowayJ. (2017). Value-Added models for teacher evaluation and accountability: Commonsense assumptions. Educational Policy, 31(5), 1-27. doi:1177/0895904817719519
3.
BeckL. G.MurphyJ. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical themes, 1920’s-1990’s. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
4.
BerlinerD.GlassG. V. (2014). Chipping away reforms that don’t make a difference. Educational Leadership, 71(9), 28-33.
5.
BlumbergW.GreenfieldW. (1980). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
8.
DanielsonC. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9.
DerringtonM. L. (2014). Teacher evaluation initial policy implementation: Principal and superintendent perceptions. Planning and Changing. 45(1/2) 120-137.
10.
DerringtonM.L. (2019). Principals as local actors in supervision. In ZepedaS.PonticellJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Supervision. Hoboken, NJ; Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
DerringtonM. L.CampbellJ. (2013). The changing conditions of instructional leadership: Principal perceptions of teacher evaluation accountability mandates. In BarnettB. G.ShohoA. R.BowersA. J. (Eds.), International research on school leadership: School and district leadership in an era of accountability (Vol. 4, pp. 231-251). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
12.
DerringtonM. L.CampbellJ. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ response to change and calls for support. Journal of Educational Change. 16(3) 305-326. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-015-9244-
13.
DerringtonM. L.KirkJ. (2016). Implementing a new teacher evaluation system: Principal leadership and teacher job-embedded professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43(4), 630-644.
14.
DerringtonM. L.CampbellJ. W. (2017a). High-stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy: U.S. Principals’ Perspectives and Variations in Practice. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1421164
15.
DerringtonM. L.CampbellJ. W. (2017b). Teacher evaluation policy tools: Principals’ selective use in instructional leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326143
FowlerJr.F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
GlickmanC.GordonS.Ross-GordonJ. (2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
19.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Pearson.
20.
HenemanH. G.MilanowskiA. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a Standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17, 173-195.
21.
HoyW. K.ForsythP. B. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Random House.
22.
LochmillerC. R. (2016). Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 75-109.
23.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136-159.
24.
McLaughlinM. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M.Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 209-228). Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
NorrisJ.van der MarsH.KulinnaP.Amrein-BeardsleyA.KwonJ.HodgesM. (2017). Physical education teacher perceptions of teacher evaluation. The Physical Educator, 74, 41-62.
27.
OvandoM. N.RamirezA. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85-110.
28.
PonticellJ.ZepedaS. (2004). Confronting well-learned lessons in supervision and evaluation. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 88(639), 43-59.
29.
PophamJ. (2013). Can classroom assessments of student growth be credibly used to evaluate teachers?English Journal, 103, 34-39.
30.
PophamJ.DeSanderM. (2014). Will the courts save teachers?Educational Leadership, 71(5), 55-58.
31.
ReddyL. A.DudekC. M.PetersS.AlperinA.KettlerR. J.KurzA. (2017). Teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: A preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30, 47-70.
32.
RobinsonM. (2017). Music teachers’ perceptions of high stakes teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10632913.2017.1373380
33.
SandholtzJ. H.SheaL. M. (2012). Predicting performance: A comparison of university supervisors’ predictions and teacher candidates’ scores on a teaching performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 39-50.
SullivanS. (2016). High-stakes accountability and the demise of formative supervision of instruction: The case of New York City. In J.GlanzZepedaS. (Eds.), Supervision: New perspectives for theory and practice (pp. 145-163). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
36.
SuttonR. (2010). Making formative assessment the way the school does business: The impact and implications of formative assessment for teachers, students and school leaders. In A.HargreavesLiebermanA.FullanM.HopkinsD. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 883-899). New York, NY: Springer.
37.
TuytensM.DevosG. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36, 521-536.
38.
West & Derrington. (2009). [Title omitted for blind review]. [Publisher omitted for blind review].
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
