New teacher evaluation reform efforts in the United States hold principals accountable for improving teaching and learning. Yet little is known about how effective principals are at these instructional leadership tasks or how principals experience and adapt to the demands of teacher evaluation reform over time. In the current study, principals (n = 78) in a Race to the Top state—Illinois—completed an online survey after the first and second year of implementation of a new teacher evaluation system. Principals felt significantly more confident in how to conduct formal classroom observations, placed more value on student achievement data, and placed less value on additional artifacts over time. Individual- and school-level factors were related to some aspects of principals’ adaptations over time. Implications are discussed.
AkibaMLeTendreGKScribnerJP (2007) Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher36(7): 369–387.
2.
Avalos-BevanB (2018) Teacher evaluation in Chile: Highlights and complexities in thirteen years of experience. Teaching and Teaching Theory and Practice24(3): 297–311.
3.
Ávila de LimaJSilvaMJT (2018) Resistance to classroom observation in the context of teacher evaluation: Teachers’ and department heads’ experiences and perspectives. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability30(1): 7–26.
4.
Bridwell-MitchellEN (2015) Theorizing teacher agency and reform: How institutionalized instructional practices change and persist. Sociology of Education88(2): 140–159.
5.
CannataMRubinMGoldringE, et al. (2017) Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly53(2): 180–222.
6.
ClotfelterCTLaddHFVigdorJLDiazRA (2004) Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23(2): 251–271.
7.
CohenJGoldhaberD (2016) Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observations. Educational Researcher45(6): 378–387.
8.
DayCBakioğluA (1996) Development and disenchantment in the professional lives of headteachers. In: GoodsonIHargreavesA (eds.), Teachers’ Professional Lives. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 123–139.
9.
De IbarrolaM (2018) Evaluation of teachers of basic education: Political tensions and radical oppositions. Education Policy Analysis Archives26(53): 1–32.
10.
DembéléMSchwilleJ (2006) Can the global trend toward accountability be reconciled with ideals of teacher empowerment? Theory and practice in Guinea. International Journal of Educational Research45(4–5): 302–314.
11.
DerringtonMLCampbellJW (2015) Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change16(3): 305–326.
12.
DerringtonMLCampbellJW (2017) Teacher evaluation policy tools: Principals’ selective use in instructional leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools17(4): 568–590.
13.
DiamondJBCooperK (2007) The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. In: MossPA (ed.), Evidence and Decision Making. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 241–263.
14.
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
15.
FordTGUrickAWilsonASP (2018) Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Policy Analysis Archives26(59): 1–36.
16.
GaretMSPorterACDesimoneLBirmanBFYoonKS (2001) What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal38(4): 915–945.
17.
GarrettRSteinbergMP (2015) Examining teacher effectiveness using classroom observation scores: Evidence from the randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis37(2): 224–242.
18.
GoldringEBGrissomJARubinM, et al. (2015) Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher44(2): 96–104.
19.
GoodTLLavigneAL (2015) Rating teachers cheaper, faster, and better: Not so fast. [Peer commentary on the paper, “Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster, and cheaper? Evidence of innovating teacher observation systems” by J Gargani and M Strong]Journal of Teacher Education66(3): 288–293.
20.
GrissomJALoebS (2011) Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal48(5): 1091–1123.
21.
GrissomJALoebSMasterB (2013) Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher42(8): 433–444.
22.
HallingerP (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education33(3): 329–351.
23.
HallingerP (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration49(2): 125–142.
24.
HallingerPHeckRH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of the empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly32(1): 5–44.
25.
HalversonRKelleyCKimballS (2004) Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In: HoyWKMiskelC (eds.), Research and theory in Educational Administration, Policy, and Reform: Research and Measurement. Charlotte, NY: Information Age Publishing, pp. 153–188.
HerlihyCKargerEPollardC, et al. (2014) State and local efforts to increase the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record116(1): 1–28.
28.
HernandezRRobertsMMenchacaV (2012) Redesigning a principal preparation program: A continuous improvement model. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation7(3): 1–12.
29.
HewittKK (2015) Educator evaluation policy that incorporates EVAAS value-added measures: Undermined intentions and exacerbated inequities. Education Policy Analysis Archives23(76): 1–49.
30.
HorngEKlasikDLoebS (2010) Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education116(4): 491–523.
31.
HvidstonDJRangeBGMcKimCAMetteIM (2015) The views of novice and late career principals concerning instructional and organizational leadership within their evaluation. Planning and Changing46(1/2): 109–126.
KatsunoM (2010) Teacher evaluation in Japanese schools: An examination from a micro-political or relational viewpoint. Journal of Educational Policy25(3): 293–307.
35.
KowalskiTJDolphDA (2015) Principal dispositions regarding the Ohio teacher evaluation system. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice11(4): 3–20.
36.
KraftMAGilmourAF (2016) Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly52(5): 711–753.
37.
LavigneAL (2014) Exploring the implications of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record116(1).
38.
LavigneALChamberlainR (2017) Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders' perceptions and pratices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability29(2): 179–209.
39.
LavigneALGoodTL (2015) Improving Teaching through Observation and Feedback: Going Beyond State and Federal Mandates. New York: Routledge.
40.
LavigneALGoodTLMarxRW (Eds.) (2014) High-stakes evaluation: High cost–big losses [Special issue]. Teachers College Record116(1).
41.
LeFevre DMRobinsonV (2015) The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadershihp: Principals' effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly51(1): 58–95.
42.
LockGLummisG (2014) Complying with school accountability requirements and the impact on school leaders. Australian Journal of Teacher Education39(2): 58–69.
43.
MarksHMNanceJP (2007) Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly43(1): 3–37.
44.
MartinezFTautSSchaafK (2016) Classroom observation for evaluating and improving teaching: An international perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation49: 15–29.
National Council on Teacher Quality (2017) Running in Place: How New Teacher Evaluations Fail to Live up to the Promises. Available at: www.nctq.org/dmsView/Final_Evaluation_Paper (accessed 10 May 2018).
47.
OvandoMN (2001) Teachers’ perceptions of a learner-centered teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education15(3): 213–231.
48.
PajaresMF (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research62(3): 307–322.
49.
RasmussenPZouY (2014) The development of educational accountability in China and Denmark. Education Policy Analysis Archives22(121): 1–22.
50.
ReidDB (2017) Shared leadership: A comparative case study of two first year US principals’ socialization around teacher evaluation policy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Epub ahead of 8 November 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1741143217739362.
51.
ReinhornSKJohnsonSMSimonNS (2017) Investing in development: Six high-performing high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis39(3): 383–406.
52.
ReynoldsDMuijsDTreharneD (2003) Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education17(1): 83–100.
53.
Robertson-KraftCZhangRS (2018) Keeping great teachers: A case study on the impact of a pilot teacher evaluation system. Educational Policy32(2): 363–394.
54.
RobinsonVMJLloydCARoweKJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly44(5): 635–674.
55.
ShatzerRHCaldarellaPHallamPRBrownB (2014) Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership42(2): 445–459.
56.
SmithWCKubackaK (2017) The emphasis of student test scores in teacher appraisal systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives25(86): 1–29.
57.
SpillaneJPKenneyAW (2012) School administration in a changing education sector: The US experience. Journal of Educational Administration50(5): 541–561.
58.
StetcherBMHoltzmanDJGaretMS, et al. (2018) Improving teaching effectiveness: Final report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2242.html (accessed 8 September 2018).
59.
TeddlieCCreemersBKyriakidesLMuijsDYuF (2006) The international system for Teacher Observation and Feedback: Evolution of an international study of teacher effectiveness constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice12(6): 561–582.
60.
Tschannen-MoranMGariesCR (2015) Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration53(1): 66–92.
61.
TuytensMDevosG (2018) Teacher evaluation policy as perceived by school principals: The case of Flanders (Belgium). Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice24(3): 209–222.
62.
Vasquez HeiligJDarling-HammondL (2008) Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis30(2): 75–110.
63.
White-SmithKAWhiteMA (2009) High school reform implementation: Principals’ perceptions on their leadership role. Urban Education44(3): 259–279.
64.
ZepedaSJ (2012) Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts, 3rd ed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
