Teacher evaluation is an important component of the education reform agenda. This study gathered and examined information regarding teacher evaluation practice in Indiana, which was needed before wide-scale implementation of new models mandated by recent legislation. Information was received from 477 principals regarding their current use and perceptions of effectiveness of summative, formative, and emergent evaluation methods. Elementary and secondary principals reported high use and effectiveness of many summative and several formative methods but reported low use of most emergent practices and disagreed that these methods were effective. Recommendations are provided to facilitate field-based support when implementing new models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrutynL. S. (2006). The most important data.Educational Leadership,63(6), 54–57.
2.
BushmanJ. (2006). Teachers as walk-through partners.Educational Leadership,63(6), 58–61.
3.
CordeiroP. A., & CunninghamW. G. (2013). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice.Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
4.
DanielsonC. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
5.
DanielsonC. (2010). Evaluations that help teachers learn.Educational Leadership,68(4), 16–20.
Darling-HammondL., BeadsleyA., HaertelE., & RothsteinJ. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluations: What we know about value-added models and other methods.Phi Delta Kappan,93(6), 8–15.
8.
Darling-HammondL., & YoungsP. (2002). Redefining highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically based research actually tell us?Educational Researcher,31(9), 13–25.
9.
DowneyC. J., SteffyB. E., EnglishF. W., FraseL. E., & PostonW. K.Jr. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
10.
DuckettW. R. (1980). Observation and the evaluation of teaching [Monograph]. Arlington, VA: Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research.
GayL. R., & AirasianP. W. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
GoldhaberD. (2010). When the stakes are high, can we rely on value-added? Exploring the use of value-added models to inform teacher workforce decisions. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org
14.
GuisbondL., NeillM., & SchaefferB. (2012). NCLB's lost decade for educational progress: What can we learn from this policy failure? Retrieved from http://fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home
15.
HaziH. M., & RucinskiD. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB.Educational Policy Analysis Archives,17(5), 1–22.
16.
HoyA. W., & HoyW. K. (2013). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools.Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
17.
Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). (2011). Changing the evaluation process in Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org
18.
Indiana Department of Education. (2012). RISE Indiana teacher effectiveness rubric. Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org
19.
Joint Committee (2008). Personnel evaluation standards, 2nd Edition.The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.jcsee.org.
20.
KellerB. (2007, May 16). NCLB rules on “quality” fall short.Education Week.
21.
MarzanoR. J., & PollockJ. E. (2004). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22.
MathersC, OliviaM., & LaineS. W. M. (2008). Improving instruction through effective teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts.Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
23.
McGrealT. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
24.
MET Project. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET Project's three-year study. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/reports.php
25.
National Governors Association (NGA). (2011). Governors play role in preparing principals to conduct teacher evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home.html
26.
National Governors Association. (2012). Center for Best Practices: Front and Center newsletters. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/center/fc
NewtonX. A., Darling-HammondL., HaertelE., & EwartT. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts.Education Policy Analysis Archives,18(23). Retrieved from http//epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810
Partnership for Learning. (2010). The impact of effective teachers and principals. Retrieved from www.partnership4learning.org
31.
RamirezA. (2001). How merit pay undermines education.Educational Leadership,58(5), 16–20.
32.
SergiovanniT. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
SharpW. L., & WalterJ. K. (2012). The principal as school manager.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
SheehanK. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/
35.
SparksS. D. (2012, October). Caution urged in using “value added” evaluations: Scholars say districts must be more careful.Education Week,32(10).
36.
StanleyS. J., & PophamW. J. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37.
UbbenG. C., HughesL. W., & NorrisC.J. (2011). The principal: Creative leadership for excellence in schools.Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
WeisburgD., SextonS., MulhernJ., & KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness.Brooklyn, NY: New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org
