Evaluation policy typically emphasizes summative judgment, but teacher evaluation also has the potential to provide formative feedback to individual teachers and feedback to focus and strengthen organizational systems to improve teaching practice. This study focuses on feedback provided through the evaluation process, with a particular emphasis on the evaluation of experienced teachers in diverse high schools. Through interviews with teachers and administrators, we explore the ways that teachers and schools use information from teacher evaluations to advance teaching practice through formative and systemic feedback. The four case studies illustrate a range of teacher evaluation practices in high schools. The effectiveness of teacher evaluation as a learning tool is shaped by the broader school context and culture and the extent to which school leaders approach evaluation as a meaningful tool for teacher and organizational learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. E., & KirstM. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on education administration (2nd ed., pp. 463–489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BarberL. W., & KleinK. (1983). Merit pay and teacher evaluation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 65(4), 247–251.
3.
BeerensD. R. (2000). Evaluating teachers for professional growth: Creating a culture of motivation and learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
BlaseJ., & BlaseJ. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
BrandtC., MathersC., OlivaM., Brown-SimsM., & HessJ. (2007). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest region (Issues and Answers Report No. REL2007030). Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest.
6.
BransfordJ. D., BrownL. L., & CockingR. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
BridgesE. M. (1986). The incompetent teacher: The challenge and the response.Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
8.
Center for Creative Leadership (1998). Leadership development: Past, present and future.Colorado Springs, CO: Author.
9.
DanielsonC. (1996). Enhancing professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10.
DanielsonC., & McGrealT. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (1990). Teacher evaluation in transition: Emerging roles and evolving methods. In MillmanJ., & Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 17–32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Darling-HammondL., WiseA. E., & KleinS. P. (1995). A license to teach: Building a profession for 21st-century schools.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL., WiseA. E., & PeaseS. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328.
HalversonR., KelleyC., & KimballS. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In HoyW., & MiskelC., Educational administration, policy and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 153–188). Greenwich, CT: Johnson.
24.
HenemanH. G.III, & MilanowskiA. (2007). Assessing human resource alignment: The foundation for building total teacher quality improvement.Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
25.
JohnsonB. L. (1997). An organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effective teaching: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 69–87.
26.
KelleyC., & ShawJ. (2009). Learning first! A school leader's guide to closing achievement gaps.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
27.
KoppichJ. E., & ShowalterC. (2008). Strategic management of human capital: A cross-case analysis of five districts.Madison, WI: Strategic Management of Human Capital.
28.
LoupK. S., GarlandJ. S., EllettC. D., & RuguttJ. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 203–226.
29.
McGrealT. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
MedleyD., & CokerH. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242–247.
31.
MoranC. C. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of a 360-degree feedback process (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 1753.
32.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA (2000). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 553–584.
33.
New Teacher Project. (2009). The widget effect.New York: Author.
34.
NewmannF., & WehlageG. (1995). Successful school restructuring.Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
35.
NewmannF. M., KingM. B., & YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259–299.
36.
NolanJ.Jr., & HooverL. A. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.New York: Wiley.
37.
PetersonK. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38.
ScrivenM. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In MiltmanJ. (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 244–271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
SergiovanniT. J., & StarrattR. J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
40.
SmylieM. A., & WenzelS. A. (2006). Promoting instructional improvement: A strategic human resource management perspective.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p84.pdf
41.
StiggensR. J., & DukeD. L. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on teacher evaluation.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
WiseA. E., Darling-HammondL., McLaughlinM. W., & BernsteinH. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices, prepared for the National Institute of Education.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
