Bradshaw, Colby, and Joyner; “The Priority Given to Teacher Evaluation and the Impact on School Improvement, Professional Development, and Student Learning”; 2004;

Bradshaw et al presented results from a mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) study that spanned 20 years and measured the relationship between the priority placed on teacher evaluation and its corresponding impact on school improvement, professional development, and student learning. Their study produced the following conclusions:

• The priority given to teacher evaluation is directly related to teachers’ perceptions of the impact of such evaluations on school improvement, professional development, and student learning. For example, districts giving high priority to teacher evaluation
  • realized a strong commitment to change at all levels;
  • created alternative-based systems that focused on teaching and learning;
  • situated teacher evaluation in the context of day-to-day efforts; and
  • provided resources to ensure that teacher evaluation had a strong impact on teaching and learning processes.
  Furthermore, administrators giving high priority to teacher evaluation
  • recognized the need to change teacher evaluation processes;
  • developed an understanding of their role and actively engaged in connecting teacher evaluation with teaching and learning; and
  • garnered a strong commitment to teacher evaluation at all levels.
• Formal and monitored processes for teacher evaluation help to insure a positive impact on school improvement, professional development, and student learning.

The authors also discussed the implications of their findings. Significant effort is required by school leaders and educators to develop and nurture the connections between teacher evaluation and school improvement, professional development, and student learning. These connections “do not happen by chance,” but require “clear intent and direction at the district level.”

Evaluation Studies of the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), U.S. Department of Education; Retrieved Dec 2008

This link connects visitors with information from NCEE’s evaluation division, a division that offers research and resources to teachers, principals, and superintendents concerned about improving the quality of instruction and increasing student achievement. The division states that it “designs evaluation studies to produce rigorous scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs and practices. In particular…[NCEE] focuses on conducting rigorous impact studies of promising educational programs and practices that are supported through federal funds.” All evaluations respond to one of three questions:

• What is the impact of the program in relation to its intended outcome?
• Is the program model effective?
• Is a specific intervention (or class of intervention) effective?

The NCEE has conducted studies evaluating a range of topics, including but not limited to literacy, mathematics, teaching quality and instruction, adult education, educational technology, and mentoring. Seven studies related to teaching quality are underway, most of which are evaluating teacher preparation programs, teacher professional development approaches, or teacher induction programs. For more information about these studies, including their research questions, design, duration, and status, see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq.asp. Reports from these studies are expected to be released between early 2009 and 2012 depending on the study.

Halverson, Kelley, and Kimball; “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems: How Principals Make Sense of Complex Artifacts to Shape Local Instructional Practice”; University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2004;

Research suggests that school-level implementations of standards-based teacher evaluation policies can vary dramatically depending on how local authorities “make sense of” the policies. In this paper, Halverson et al presented the results of their examination of how administrators in 14 schools in a large U.S. school district interpreted and implemented a complex program designed to evaluate teachers and their teaching practices. The standards-based teacher evaluation system being implemented was based on the framework for teaching put forward by Danielson in 1996. Data sources included interviews with district leaders, principals and teachers, written teacher evaluations, and school and district demographics.

The authors found that administrators chose to either “co-opt,” “ignore,” or “adapt” aspects of the teacher evaluation system depending upon their school context, expressed time constraints, prior evaluation practices, perceptions of their role as a leader, and the skills and knowledge they brought to that role. Rather than using the evaluation system to provide formative feedback to veteran teachers or make changes to the organizational culture of the schools, many administrators expressed a desire to use teacher evaluation methods for two purposes: 1) to maintain a community of good will with teachers, and 2) to either help or remove novice teachers depending on basic levels of performance.

Although the authors concluded by stating that further research is needed to better understand how school leaders choose and exploit the potentially transformative features of a teacher evaluation system, their study emphasizes the importance of the administrator’s role in the following areas:

• Influencing teacher evaluation practices;
• Changing the organizational culture to close the gap between instructional and supervision practices; and
• Creating conditions for substantive conversations about reforming teaching practice.

In addition to further research, the authors stated that evaluators may need more training so that the link between evaluation processes, and enhanced student learning and improved teaching quality can be made more explicit. Training should be designed to

• help familiarize district leaders with their roles in goal setting, observation, and verbal and written feedback;
• provide administrators and teachers with opportunities for sharing effective evaluation practices; and
• enhance evaluators abilities to provide constructive feedback in a dynamic political and cultural organizational context (e.g., by using a low-stakes, developmental model).

Marx, Gary E.; “Research Brief: Teacher Evaluation” The Principal’s Partnership: A Union of Pacific Foundation; 2007;

In this article, Marx responds to the question “What are some guidelines for implementing an effective teacher evaluation system?” His review of recent literature on teacher evaluation revealed the following criteria for developing a constructive evaluation system:

• Connect evaluation to established school goals;
• Collect and use data on teacher performance;
• Design feedback mechanisms; and
• Establish ways to meaningfully involve teachers in the evaluative process.

Marx stated that historically, efforts to improve teacher evaluation systems have failed to accomplish their intended goals. More recently, however, he claimed that teacher evaluation is being targeted as an “organizational problem” that includes changing the school climate, having the administrator become an instructional leader, and developing links between school improvement, professional development, teacher evaluation, and student learning. Marx presented the following guidelines as “synthesized principles” drawn from the literature on effective evaluation systems:

• Identify a common framework or model that defines good teaching;
• Decide the purpose(s) of the evaluation system (formative, summative, or both);
• Use multiple sources of data on teacher performance (e.g., lesson plans, student work samples, portfolios, and direct observation (note that walk-through observation techniques have been found to be more valid that structured classroom visits));
• Determine how best to meet the leadership requirements for effective teacher evaluation (e.g., someone who plays a strong and positive role in the evaluation process, collaborates with teachers, provides useful feedback, and facilitates reflective teacher practice); and
• Assess the school climate to ensure that it is supportive of professional development (e.g., supports collaboration and reflective teacher practice, focuses on teaching and learning).

Marx also provided links to a number of related web resources, each of which may help to answer questions related to evaluating teaching practice. A sampling of his references is provided below:

• National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS);
  This web site provides links to numerous resources including descriptions of the teaching standards (see the NBPTS policy statement What Teachers Should Know a be Able To Do (2002) and assessment processes used in the U.S. to certify teachers in various instructional areas.
• A Blueprint for Teacher Evaluation;
  This ASCD web site provides access to Chapter 3, Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice (Danielson and McGreal, 1996). The blueprint presented in this chapter discusses the three essential elements of an effective teacher evaluation system (i.e., 1) a definition of what good teaching is and what it looks like, 2) techniques and procedures to assess all aspects of teaching, and 3) trained evaluators who can make consistent judgments about performance based on evidence). It also includes a discussion of exemplary practice, the conditions that lead to good practice, and thoughts about the nature of professional learning.
• Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development (Nov 2005);
  This research summary outlines some of the reasons teacher evaluations may present an inaccurate view of performance. The findings reveal potential challenges faced by high school principals attempting to link evaluation practices with improved teacher learning.
• Using the Classroom Walk-Through as an Instructional Leadership Strategy;
  The author of this article describes the essential elements of an effective classroom walk-through as a tool for instructional supervision.

Spitz, Faith; “Through the Looking Glass: Teacher Evaluation Through Self-Reflection”; Readington Township Board of Education; International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning: Vol. 5, No. 18; 2001;

In this article, Spitz described the implementation of and reaction to a nontraditional approach to teacher evaluation used in Readington Township, New Jersey. The approach required teachers to research and reflect upon their own instructional practice. It stressed professional growth by encouraging teachers to think about the areas where they needed to grow. The approach involved Danielson’s framework for teaching (see Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 1996, 2007). Teachers were to measure their own practice against standards identified within each Danielson’s four domains (planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities). These standards encompassed the following themes:

• high expectations;
• developmental appropriateness;
• differentiating instruction;
• accommodating students with special needs;
• equity;
• diversity and cultural sensitivity; and
• appropriate use of technology.

The administrator acted as a mentor and/or coach, collaborating with teachers, creating an atmosphere of professionalism and collegiality, and emphasizing improved performance as well as morale. Teachers’ responses to the approach were reported to be mostly positive; however, the author indicated that more research was needed to assess the effectiveness of the approach over the long term.

The Danielson Group: A Teaching and Learning Collaborative; The Framework for Teaching

The Danielson Group website highlights Charlotte Danielson’s work related to describing, enhancing and evaluating teacher professional practice. Danielson suggests that effective teacher evaluation systems can accomplish two things: 1) ensure quality teaching and 2) promote professional learning. She also argues that in order to accomplish these goals evaluation systems should have the following characteristics:

• Rigor;
• Validity;
• Reliability;
• Defensibility;
• A grounding in research; and
• A good definition of teaching practice.

In support of these assertions, Charlotte Danielson has developed “The Framework for Teaching: Components of Professional Practice,” a research-based set of organized components of instruction that is grounded in a constructivist view of learning and teaching. Her Framework describes quality teaching as an activity comprised of multiple parts, with each part fitting into a larger domain of responsibility. In total, Danielson identifies 22 components (and 76 smaller elements that play a part in the components), which she groups into four domains of teaching responsibility including 1) planning and preparation; 2) classroom environment; 3) instruction; and 4) professional responsibilities.

To facilitate effective teacher evaluation, Danielson offers rubrics to complement each component of her Framework. These rubrics allow evaluators and teachers to identify which domains of practice require improvement and thereby provide a foundation for building an evaluative system. In addition, the Framework and associated rubrics can be used to promote professional development, focus self-reflection, encourage dialogue among teachers, and facilitate teacher self-assessment. Danielson suggests that using tools like these help teachers “become more thoughtful and analytic about their work, and [therefore in a better] position to improve their teaching.”

Resources to support teachers and administrators as they strive to use teacher evaluation to effectively enhance professional practice can be found at http://charlottedanielson.com/Bookspubl.htm. A sampling of these Danielson books are described below:

• Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice (2000): this book provides a road map for a teacher evaluation system that combines quality assurance with professional development. It offers concrete examples, useful forms, and assessment tools, as well as standards for ensuring acceptable performance; techniques and procedures for assessing all aspects of teaching; guidelines for making consistent judgments about performance based on evidence; and a system design for evaluating beginning teachers, tenured faculty, and teachers needing intensive assistance.
• Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching 2nd edition (2007): this book is an updated version of Danielson’s 1996 Framework for Teaching designed to support novice and experienced teachers alike as they improve their effectiveness.
• Electronic Forms and Rubrics for Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2008): these downloadable and customizable forms and rubrics complement the previous titles and are available for purchase through ASCD.

Note: Many of the components in Danielson’s Framework could be mapped to KSAs found in Alberta’s Teaching Quality Standard.

Toch and Rothman; “Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education”; Education Sector Reports; 2008;

In this detailed report, Toch et al present a variety of research findings related to past and current uses of and methods for teacher evaluation in U.S. public schools. The authors discuss the ineffectiveness of traditional evaluation methods (what they call “drive-bys”) and the lack of comprehensiveness in the use of standardized testing as an evaluation standard. The authors suggest that previous failures demand new models for teacher evaluation and highlighted a few examples including the following:

• Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT): PACT is a consortium of teacher preparation programs at 30 California Universities that have developed a teacher performance assessment comprised of assessing teaching portfolios against a variety of performance expectations (see http://www.pacttpa.org for more information).
• Praxis: Developed by the Educational Testing Service, a U.S.-based non-profit corporation, The Praxis Series™ assessments provide educational tests and other services that states use as part of their teacher licensure and certification process. The Praxis I® tests measure basic academic skills, and the Praxis II® tests measure general and subject-specific knowledge and teaching skills. Praxis III® Teacher Performance Assessments assess the skills of beginning teachers in classroom settings. ETS developed the Praxis III assessments for use in teacher licensing decisions made by states or local agencies empowered to license teachers. Under the guidelines that govern its use, the Praxis III assessments are not intended for use with more experienced teachers nor intended for use in making employment decisions. See www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem for more information.
• Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST): BEST is an induction program of portfolio-based support and assessment for beginning teachers in Conneticut (see www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2607&Q=319186 for more information).
• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): funded in part by the University of Virginia, CLASS is a system for observing and assessing the quality of social and instructional interactions between teachers and students across 3 broad domains – emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support (see www.classobservation.com for more information).

In addition to these models, the authors also provided research to support the value of incentive programs for increasing teaching quality and teacher retention.

The authors offered the following recommendations based on the research they conducted in the U.S.:

• Teacher evaluations ought to be conducted on the basis of instruction and student achievement;
• Evaluators require evaluation training and should have a background or understanding of the subject matter being taught;
• Further research and evaluation should be conducted on evaluative models and methods;
• Economic incentives should be introduced at the administrative level to encourage an earnest approach to teacher evaluation;
• Based upon an effective evaluative method, performance pay should be introduced as an incentive for increasing teacher quality; and
• The federal government should establish a new definition of “qualified” for teachers, a definition rooted in specific standards that help to focus evaluations on teacher performance rather than teacher credentials.