While many states have adopted new requirements for teacher evaluations in pursuit of Race to the Top funding (Darling-Hammond, 2013), this qualitative case study of one Rocky Mountain school district that has been working on developing a system of supervision and evaluation to support teacher effectiveness for over a decade examines how teachers believe the supervision and evaluation practice impacts their daily classroom instructional practices. Five themes emerged from the interview data of 30 teachers across the district and in diverse teaching positions. Feedback, quality of relationships, the evaluation rubric, modeling, personal integrity, and self-reflection were identified as mechanisms that enabled teachers to benefit from the existing system. These themes revealed the complexity of the system in which multiple mechanisms must work in coordination in order for teachers to realize the benefits in their daily instructional practice.
GallM. D., & AchesonK. A. (2011). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and inservice applications, 6th edition.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
GlickmanC. D., GordonS. P., & Ross-GordonJ. M. (2014). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
17.
GoldringE., GrissonJ. A., RubinM., NeumerskiC. M., CannataM., DrakeT., & SchuermannP. (2015). Making room value added: Principals' human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104.
18.
GordonR., KaneT. J., & StaigerD. O. (2006). The Hamilton Project: Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job (Discussion Paper 2006-01).
19.
HargreavesA., & FullanM. (2012.). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school.New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.New York: Routledge.
21.
HenemanH. G., & MilanowskiA. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reaction to standards-based teacher evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173–195.
22.
JiangJ. Y., SportS. E., & LuppescuS. (2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago's REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105–116.
KaneT., & CantrellS. (2012). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures for effective teaching project.Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
KimballS. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 241–268.
27.
KimballS., WhiteB., MilanowskiA., & BormanG. (2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 54–78.
28.
MarshallK. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727–735.
29.
MarzanoR. J. (2013). The Marzano teacher evaluation model.Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory.
30.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MilanowskiA. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53.
33.
MilanowskiA., KimballS., & OddenA. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and links to learning. In StiefelL., SchwartzA. E., RubensteinR., & ZabelJ. (Eds.), Measuring school performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research (pp. 137–159). 2005 Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
MorseJ. M., BarrettM., MayanM., OlsonK., & SpiersJ. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.1(2), 1–19.
36.
OddenA. (2004). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 126–137.
37.
PapayJ. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 13–141.
ShieldsC. M. (2007). Can case studies achieve the “Gold Standard”? Or when methodology meets politics. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association, Chicago, Illinois.
StakeR. E. (1994). Case Studies. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis.New York: Guilford Press.
45.
StigginsR. J., & DukeD. L. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research for teacher evaluation.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
TuckerP., & StrongeJ. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49.
TuytensM., & DevosG. (2014). The problematic implementation of teacher evaluation policy: School failure or governmental pitfall?Educational Management Administration and Leadership, doi: 10.1177/1741143213502188
WeisbergD., SextonS., MulhernJ., & KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect- Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf
54.
WrightS. P., HornS. P., & SandersW. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
55.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research, 4th edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
