A core motivation for the widespread teacher evaluation reforms of the past decade was the belief that these new systems would promote teacher development through high-quality feedback. We examine this theory by studying teachers’ perceptions of evaluation feedback in Boston Public Schools and evaluating the district's efforts to improve feedback through an administrator training program. Teachers generally reported that evaluators were trustworthy, fair, and accurate but that they struggled to provide high-quality feedback. We find little evidence that the training program improved perceived feedback quality, classroom instruction, teacher self-efficacy, or student achievement. Our results illustrate the challenges of using evaluation systems as engines for professional growth when administrators lack the time and skill necessary to provide frequent, high-quality feedback.
AdnotM.DeeT.KatzV.WyckoffJ. (2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716663646
2.
AlmyS. (2011). Fair to everyone: Building the balanced teacher evaluations that educators and students deserve. Education Trust.
3.
AngristJ. D.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.1
BurgessS.RawallS.TaylorE. S. (2020). Teacher peer observation and student test scores: Evidence from a field experiment in English secondary schools. Journal of Labor Economics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/712997
CherasaroT. L.BrodersenR. M.RealeM. L.YanoskiD. C. (2016). Teachers’ responses to feedback from evaluators: What feedback characteristics matter? (REL 2017-190). Regional Educational Laboratory Central.
11.
CurtisR.WienerR. (2012). Means to an end: A guide to developing teacher evaluation systems that support growth and development. Aspen Institute.
12.
DanielsonC.McGrealT. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. ASCD.
13.
DeeT. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023750
14.
DeeT. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.3.528
15.
DeeT. S.WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21818
16.
DeNisiA. S.SoneshS. (2011). The appraisal and management of performance at work. In ZedeckS. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 255–279). https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-009
17.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
DobbieW.FryerR. G.Jr. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.28
20.
DonaldsonM. L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform. Center for American Progress.
21.
DonaldsonM. L. (2016). Teacher evaluation reform: Focus, feedback, and fear. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 72–76.
22.
DonaldsonM. L.CobbC.LeChasseurK.GabrielR.GonzalesR.WoulfinS.MakuchA. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut's system for educator evaluation and development. Center for Education Policy Analysis.
23.
DonaldsonM. L.PapayJ. P. (2015). An idea whose time had come: Negotiating teacher evaluation reform in New Haven, Connecticut. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/683291
24.
DonaldsonM. L.WoulfinS. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718784205
25.
EgaliteA. J.KisidaB.WintersM. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45(April), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007
26.
FeeneyE. J. (2007). Quality feedback: The essential ingredient for teacher success. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(4), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
29.
GaretM. S.WayneA. J.BrownS.RicklesJ.SongM.ManzeskeD. (2017). The impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals (NCEE 2018 4001). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
30.
GaruboR. C.RothsteinS. W. (1998). Supportive supervision in schools. Greenwood.
31.
GershensonS.HartC.HymanJ.LindsayC.PapageorgeN. W. (2018). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers (No. w25254). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25254
32.
GlickmanC. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. ASCD.
33.
GoffP.Edward GuthrieJ.GoldringE.BickmanL. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704.
34.
GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.). (2016). Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures. Teachers College Press.
35.
HalversonR.KelleyC.KimballS. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. G. (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 153–188). Information Age.
36.
HanushekE. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In GoldhaberD.HannawayJ. (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165–180). Urban Institute Press.
37.
HerlihyC.KargerE.PollardC.HillH. C.KraftM. A.WilliamsM.HowardS. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–28.
38.
HerrmannM.ClarkM.James-BurdumyS.TuttleC.KautzT.KnechtelV.DotterD.WulsinC. S.DekeJ. (2019, October). The effects of a principal professional development program focused on instructional leadership. U.S. Department of Education.
39.
HoltS. B.GershensonS. (2015). The impact of teacher demographic representation on student attendance and suspensions (IZA Discussion Papers, No. 9554). Institute for the Study of Labor. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/126645/1/dp9554.pdf
40.
JacobR.GoddardR.KimM.MillerR.GoddardY. (2015). Exploring the causal impact of the McREL Balanced Leadership Program on leadership, principal efficacy, instructional climate, educator turnover, and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714549620
JohnsonS. M.BirkelandS. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003581
43.
KeganR.LaheyL. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.
44.
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021787806189
45.
KlugerA. N.DeNisiA. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teaching coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
48.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445
49.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17718797
50.
LaneJ. L. (2020). Maintaining the frame: Using frame analysis to explain teacher evaluation policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 5–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219848689
51.
LeeV. E.LoebS. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers’ attitudes and students’ achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001003
McLaughlinM. W.PfeiferR. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement, accountability, and effective learning. Teachers College Press.
54.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3
55.
MihalyK.SchwartzH. L.OpperI. M.GrimmG.RodriguezL.MarianoL. T. (2018). Impact of a checklist on principal-teacher feedback conferences following classroom observations (REL 2018-285). Regional Educational Laboratory South west.
56.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Human capital in Boston public schools: Rethinking how to attract, develop and retain effective teachers. ERIC Clearing house.
57.
NeumerskiC. M.GrissomJ. A.GoldringE.RubinM.CannataM.SchuermannP.DrakeT. A. (2018). Restructuring instructional leadership: How multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems are redefining the role of the school principal. The Elementary School Journal, 119(2), 270–297. https://doi.org/10.1086/700597
58.
PapayJ. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123–141.
59.
PapayJ. P.TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H.LaskiM. E. (2020). Learning job skills from colleagues at work: Evidence from a field experiment using teacher performance data. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(1), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170709
60.
ReinhornS. K.JohnsonS. M.SimonN. S. (2017). Investing in development: Six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717690605
61.
SartainL.StoelingaS. R.BrownE. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation: Lessons learned from observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
62.
ScheelerM. C.RuhlK. L.McAfeeM. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640402700407
SmitherJ. W.LondonM.ReillyR. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x
65.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
66.
SporteS. E.StevensW. D.HealeyK.JiangJ.HartH. (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago's REACH students. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
SteinbergM. P.DonaldsonM. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340-359. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00186
69.
SteinbergM. P.KraftM. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726752
70.
SteinbergM. P.SartainL. (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago's Excellence in Teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00173
71.
TaieS.GoldringR. (2017). Characteristics of public elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2015–16 National Teacher and Principal Survey. First look. (NCES 2017-072). National Center for Education Statistics.
72.
TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628–3651. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3628
73.
ThomasE.WingertP.ConantE.RegisterS. (2010). Why we can't get rid of failing teachers. Newsweek, 155(11), 24–27.
74.
ThurlingsM.VermeulenM.BastiaensT.StijnenS. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.004
TuytensM.DevosG. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055691003729054
77.
TuytensM.DevosG. (2014). The problematic implementation of teacher evaluation policy: School failure or governmental pitfall?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4_Suppl.), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502188
78.
ZeeM.KoomenH. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.
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.
