Increasingly, states and districts are combining student growth measures with rigorous, rubric-aligned teacher observations in constructing teacher evaluation measures. Although the student growth or value-added components of these measures have received much research and policy attention, the results of this study suggest that the data generated by high-quality observation systems have potential to inform principals’ use of data for human capital decisions. Interview and survey data from six school districts that have recently implemented new evaluation systems with classroom observations provide evidence that principals tend to rely less on test scores in their human capital decisions. The consistency, transparency, and specificity of observation data may provide benefits for principals seeking to use these data to inform their decision making.
CannataM.RubinM.GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.NeumerskiC.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2014, March). Using teacher effectiveness data for information rich hiring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX.
ChildersK. L. (2012, October). Holding teachers accountable: Principals’ perceptions of the alignment of value-added metrics with evaluations of teacher quality. University Council for Educational Administration Annual Conference, 17. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2175931 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2175931
4.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DonaldsonM. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 838–882.
7.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2014, March). Assessing principals’ assessments: A closer look at subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX.
8.
HallingerP.HeckR.MurphyJ. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 5–28.
9.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 100, 267–271.
10.
HarrisD. N. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 319–350.
11.
HarrisD. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matters for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 73–112.
14.
JacobB. A. (2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 403–434.
15.
KimballS. A.MilanowskiA. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 34–70.
16.
Le CompteM. D.SchensulJ. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
17.
McCaffreyD. F.KoretzD.LockwoodJ. R.HamiltonL. S. (2004). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Retrieved March10, 2013, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG158.html
18.
MasterB. (2014). Staffing for success linking teacher evaluation and school personnel management in practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 207–227.
19.
MurphyJ.HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation. The case of the missing clothes?Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.
20.
NeumerskiC.GrissomJ. A.GoldringE.CannataM.DrakeT.RubinM.SchuermannP. (2014, March). Inside teacher evaluation systems: Shifting the role of the principal as instructional leader. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX.
21.
TylerJ. H. (2013). If you build it will they come? Teachers’ online use of student performance data. Education, 8(2), 168–207.
22.
WintersM. A.CowenJ. M. (2013). Who would stay, who would be dismissed? An empirical consideration of value-added teacher retention policies. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 330–337.
