We studied how six high-performing, high-poverty schools in one large Massachusetts city implemented the state’s new teacher evaluation policy. The sample includes traditional, turnaround, restart, and charter schools, each of which had received the state’s highest accountability rating. We sought to learn how these successful schools approached teacher evaluation, including classroom observations, feedback, and summative ratings. We interviewed 142 teachers and administrators and analyzed data using sensemaking theory, which considers how individuals’ knowledge and beliefs, the context in which they work, and the policy stimuli they encounter affect implementation. All schools prioritized the goal of developing their teachers over holding them accountable. The spillover effects of additional policies affected how these schools approached implementation.
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 1261–1302.
2.
BertrandM.MarshJ. A. (2015). Teachers’ sensemaking of data and implications for equity. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 861–893.
3.
CantrellS.KaneT. J. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study (MET Project Research Paper). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
4.
ChesterM. D. (2011, April16). Memorandum to Members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Proposed regulations on evaluation of educators. Malden: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
5.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
6.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476–509.
7.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.
8.
CohenD. K.HillH. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
CubberleyE. P. (1915). The Portland Survey: A textbook on city school administration. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
10.
CurtisR.WeinerR.AspenI. (2012). Means to an end: A guide to developing teacher evaluation systems that support growth and development. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
11.
DobbieW.FryerR. G.Jr. (2011). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City (Working Paper No. 17632). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17632
12.
DonaldsonM. L. (2009). So long, Lake Wobegon? Using teacher evaluation to raise teacher quality. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
13.
DonaldsonM. L.CobbC. D. (2015). Implementing student learning objectives and classroom observations in Connecticut’s teacher evaluation system. In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 131–142). New York City, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
DonaldsonM. L.PapayJ. P. (2015). An idea whose time had come: Negotiating teacher evaluation reform in New Haven, Connecticut. American Journal of Education, 122, 39–70.
15.
DonaldsonM. L.PeskeH. G. (2010). Supporting effective teaching through teacher evaluation: A study of teacher evaluation in five charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
16.
DrakeT. A.GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.CannataM.NeumerskiC.RubinM.SchuermannP. (2015). Development or dismissal? Exploring principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data. In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 116–130). New York City, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119, 41–71.
18.
FirestoneW. A.NordinT. L.ShcherbakovA.KirovaD.BlitzC. L. (2014). New Jersey’s Pilot Teacher Evaluation Program: Year 2 final report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
19.
GreenoJ. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.
20.
GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (2015). Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
HalversonR.KelleyC.KimballS. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. (Eds.), Research and Theory in Educational Administration, Policy, and Reform: Research and measurement (pp. 153–188). Charlotte, NY: Information Age Publishing.
22.
Institute for Education Science. (2014). State requirements for teacher evaluation policies promoted by Race to the Top (NCEE Evaluation Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
23.
KimballS. M.MilanowskiA. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 34–70.
24.
KingdonJ. W. (2002). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Longman.
25.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 711-753.
26.
KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teacher experiences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 476–500.
27.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Ann. Ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012). The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/
29.
Massachusetts Task Force on the Evaluation of Teachers and Administrators. (2011). Building a breakthrough framework for educator evaluation in the commonwealth. Malden: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
30.
MaxwellJ. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133–152.
32.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher, 42, 476–487.
33.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.
34.
McLaughlinM. W.PfeiferR. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement, accountability, and effective learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
O’PryS. C.SchumacherG. (2012). New teachers’ perceptions of a standards-based performance appraisal system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 325–350.
37.
PapayJ. P.JohnsonS. M. (2012). Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs. Educational Policy, 26, 696–729.
38.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39.
ReinhornS. K.JohnsonS. M. (2014). Can evaluation provide both accountability and development for teachers? Evidence from six high-poverty schools (Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
40.
RigbyJ. C. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 374–392.
41.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.
42.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.
43.
SartainL.StoelingaS. R.BrownE. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
44.
SimonN. S.JohnsonS. M.ReinhornS. K. (2015). The matchmaking process: Teacher hiring in six high-performing, high-poverty schools (Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
45.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
46.
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, 340–359.
47.
TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102, 3628–3651.
48.
ThomasE.WingertP.ConantE.RegisterS. (2010, June9). Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers. Newsweek, 155, 24–27.
49.
TochT.RothmanR. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
50.
von FrankV. (2013). Evaluations serve as pathways for professional growth. Learning Forward, 18, 3–5.
51.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD.SchunckJ.PalciscoA.MorganK. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf
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.
