Principal Roles, Work Demands, and Supports Needed to Implement New Teacher Evaluation

Principal Roles, Work Demands, and SupportsNeeded to Implement New Teacher EvaluationBy Shelby Cosner, University of Illinois at Chicago, Steven M. Kimball,University of Wisconsin-Madison, Elizabeth Barkowski, SEDL, BradleyCarl, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Curtis Jones, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee

http://ruepi.uic.edu

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Shelby Cosner is anAssociate Professor ofEducationalOrganization andLeadership andAcademic ProgramDirector of theDoctorate of UrbanEducational Leadershipat UIC.

Steven M. Kimball is anAssistant Scientist withthe Consortium forPolicy Research inEducation and Value-Added Research Centerin the University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Elizabeth Barkowski isa Research Associate forResearch andEvaluation at SEDL.

Bradley Carl isAssociate Director andResearcher at the Value-Added Research Centerin the Wisconsin Centerfor Education Researchat the University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Curtis Jones is a SeniorScientist in the Schoolof Education at theUniversity ofWisconsin-Milwaukeeand the evaluator of thestate of Wisconsin’sEducator Effectivenesssystem.

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

July 2014

Vol. 3, Book 3

ABSTRACTPolicy makers at the federal levelhave embraced an educatoreffectiveness agenda, which inturn has driven many states acrossthe country to rapidly develop andimplement new and morecomplex teacher evaluationsystems. It is increasingly clearthat the success of these nascentteacher evaluation systems partlydepends on the will, skill andcapacity of school principals,individuals who have historicallybeen tasked with evaluatingteachers. School principals havetraditionally had, and will in mostcases continue to have, primaryresponsibility for evaluating the3.7 million public school teachersnationwide. While teacherevaluation innovations presentseveral opportunities forimproving instructionalsupervision and teacher quality,they also involve severalchallenges especially on the partof principals. Time demands and

cognitive challenges will beinevitable as principals learnabout and implement new teacherevaluation systems.Simultaneously, other educationalchanges going to scale, includingCommon Core State Standardswith aligned assessments, andstate school accountabilitysystems, will compete for theattention of school leaders andteachers. Negotiating thesechanges to maximize the positivepotential of evaluation reformsrequires a commitment by statesand districts to resources fortraining and support as well aspolicy coherence.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policyBRIEF

2

INTRODUCTIONIn an ongoing quest to improvestudent learning across the US,policy makers at the federal levelhave embraced an educatoreffectiveness agenda. This newpolicy agenda targets theimprovement of educator practiceand effectiveness as a keymechanism for improving studentlearning. This emphasis has drivenmany states across the country torapidly develop and implement newand more complex, standards-basedteacher evaluation systems.1 Asthese new evaluation systems aredeveloped, federal initiatives such asthe Race to the Top Fund (RTT)grants,2 waivers from provisions tothe Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA),3 and theTeacher Incentive Fund (TIF)grants,4 have encouraged these newsystems to include several key

design features. In particular, newevaluation systems typically baseteacher evaluations on multiplemeasures of teacher performance.These measures often includemeasures of teachers’ professionalpractice that draw on observationsof practice and analysis of teachingartifacts, along with some measuresof student achievement and/orgrowth.5 These new evaluationsystems also tend to examineteacher practice through rubricsaligned to model teacher standards6

that emphasize the collection ofvaried sources of data as evidence ofteacher practice across a range ofdomains and more specific elementsof teacher work. Several stateevaluation systems have alsoincluded student perceptions ofteaching as one of the other teacherevaluation measures. Moreover,numerous states that did not receiveRTT grants, ESEA waivers, or TIF

The success of new

teacher evaluation

systems partly

depends on the will,

skill, and capacity

of school principals,

individuals who

have historically

been tasked with

evaluating teachers.

1 Patrick McGuinn, “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants, and the ObamaEducation Agenda,” Educational Policy 26, no. 1 (2012): 136.

2 Twelve states (including the District of Columbia) were awarded Phase 1 and 2 Race to the Topgrants in 2010, with an additional seven states receiving Phase 3 awards in 2011 (www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/awards.html). A total of 21 districts received Race to the Top-Districtawards in two separate competitions in 2012 and 2013 (www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/awards.html).

3 Flexibility waivers have been awarded thus far to 42 states from provisions of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act. These waivers require the adoption of new educator evaluationsystems that include multiple ratings categories and a “significant emphasis” on student growthmeasures, as well as the use of decisions to inform personnel decisions. An additional threestates’ ESEA flexibility requests are currently under review by the U.S. Department of Education(http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html).

4 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which is intended to center human resource systems on newperformance-based teacher and principal evaluations, encourages related compensationchanges in high-need schools, with grants awarded thus far to more than 100 grantees acrossfour cohorts between 2006 and 2012. See www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/awards.html.

5 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, “ Databases on State Teacher and Principal EvaluationPolicies,” http://resource.tqsource.org/stateevaldb/. The percentage, or weight, of eachcomponent in an educator’s overall evaluation rating varies by state. About half of the statesrequire or recommend that student achievement, or student growth, measures comprise 50% ofthe teacher evaluation score. The other 50% is made up of measures of teacher professionalpractice, including classroom observations (See also National Council on Teacher Quality, “2013State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary,” www.nctq.org/dmsView/2013_State_Teacher_Policy_Yearbook_National_Summary_NCTQ_Report; Jim Hull, “Trends in TeacherEvaluation: How States are Measuring Teacher Performance,” www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluating-performance/Trends-in-Teacher-Evaluation-At-A-Glance/Trends-in-Teacher-Evaluation-Full-Report-PDF.pdf). Other states may have a smaller percentagededicated to other outcome measures.

6 Many states and districts, for example, have aligned teacher professional practice rubrics tostandards developed by the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC).

Teacher Evaluation and Principals

policyBRIEF

3http://ruepi.uic.edu

grants have since passed legislationon their own to establish newteacher evaluation systems. Indeed,it is likely now the case that veryfew states have not revised or arenot in the process of substantiallyrevising their educator evaluationprocesses.

The policy emphasis on teacherevaluation has been motivated by anumber of factors anddevelopments. For decades therehave been concerns about the levelof student performance in coreacademic subjects such as reading,mathematics, and science.7

Although a range of federal policyinitiatives have been introducedover the years to address thesestudent performance concerns,recent research documenting thecritical role that effective teachersplay in promoting student success8

has clearly encouraged policy thattargets the improvement of teacher

practice and effectiveness. At thesame time research on traditionalteacher evaluation systems hasdocumented a range of concernswith these systems such as thequality of measurement in teacherevaluation ratings9 and the verylimited differentiation in teacherratings produced by existingevaluation systems10 (which amongother implications means thatexisting systems have not beenconducive for the identification ofthe most and least effectiveeducators).11 Equally important isthe growing recognition thattraditional evaluation systems havenot consistently proven helpful toeducators in identifying specificareas for improvement and havedemonstrated little relation to theoverall improvement of teacherquality and student learning.12

It is increasingly clear that thesuccess of these new teacher

evaluation systems partly dependson the will, skill and capacity ofschool principals, individuals whohave historically been tasked withevaluating teachers.13 Schoolprincipals have traditionally had,and will in most cases continue tohave, primary responsibility forevaluating the 3.7 million publicschool teachers nationwide.14 Whilestates have taken slightly differentapproaches to teacher evaluation,as we will illustrate in this brief,principals will shoulder the mainresponsibility for a range of newand expanded teacher evaluationtasks. This work in turn necessitatesthat principals have access tocertain resources, developexpanded procedural andconceptual knowledge, and buildnew skill sets if new evaluationsystems are to be enacted in robustand meaningful ways.15

Assistant/associate principals,where they are present in schools,

7 Sean Readon, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations,” WhitherOpportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, Russel Sage Foundation, 2011). Motoko Rich, “American 15-Year-Olds Lag,Mainly in Math, on International Standardized Tests, New York Times, Education (December 3, 2013).

8 For example, Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff, The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomesin Adulthood (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011); Eric Hanusheck, The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality(Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010); Eric Hanushek and Steven G. Rivkin, “Generalizations about Using Value-AddedMeasures of Teacher Quality,” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 100, (2010): 267; Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, “CanTeacher Quality be Effectively Assessed? National Board Certification as a Signal of Effective Teaching,” Review of Economics and Statistics 89, no. 1(2007): 134.

9 Donald M. Medley and Homer Coker, “The Accuracy of Principals’ Judgment of Teacher Performance,” Journal of Educational Research 80, no. 4(1987): 242; The New Teacher Project, Hiring, Assignment, and Transfer in Milwaukee Public Schools (New York, NY: The New Teacher Project,2007).

10 Stephen Sawchuck, “Teachers’ Ratings Still High Despite New Measures,” Education Week, February 5, 2013; The New Teacher Project, Hiring,Assignment, and Transfer; Daniel Weisberg et al., The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in TeacherEffectiveness (New York, NY: The New Teacher Project, 2009).

11 Charlotte Danielson and Thomas L. McGreal, Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice (Alexandria, VA, 2000); Mary M. Kennedy,“Attribution Error and the Quest for Teacher Quality,” Educational Researcher 39, no. 8 (2010): 591; The New Teacher Project, Hiring, Assignment,and Transfer.

12 Eileen Horng and Susanna Loeb, “New Thinking about Instructional Leadership,” Phi Delta Kappan 92, no. 3 (2010): 66.13 Phillip Hallinger, Ronald H. Heck, and Joseph Murphy, “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement: An Analysis of the Evidence,” Educational

Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability DOI 10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5 (2013); Richard Halverson, Carolyn Kelley, and Steven Kimball,“Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems: How Principals Make Sense of Complex Artifacts to Shape Local Instructional Practices” in Researchand Theory in Educational Administration, eds. Wayne Hoy and Cecil Miskel (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2004); Edward Liu andSusan Moore Johnson, “New Teachers’ Experiences of Hiring: Late, Rushed, and Information-Poor,” Educational Administration Quarterly 42,(2006): 324.

14 Corinne Herlihy et al., “State and Local Efforts to Increase the Validity and Reliability of Scores from Teacher Evaluation Systems,” Teachers CollegeRecord 16, no. 1 (2014).

15 Mary Lynn Derrington, “Changes in Teacher Evaluation: Implications for Principals’ Work,” Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 77, no. 3 (2011): 51;William Firestone et al., Strategies for Training on a Teacher Practice Evaluation Instrument: Advice from New Jersey’s Teacher Evaluation PilotDistricts (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education, 2013).


policyBRIEF

4

will likely assist in the teacherevaluation process. Otherevaluators, to a more limitedextent, may also assist withevaluations (district leaders or peerteacher evaluators). But it is theschool principal who must lead andoversee the change process at theschool level.

To set the stage for our examinationof the principals’ role in teacherevaluation policy implementation,we begin by exploring historicalwork roles of principals. Next, welook specifically at the enactmentof traditional and more recentstandards-based teacher evaluationsystems by principals and howthese systems have impactedprincipals’ work. Using three stateswith new teacher evaluationsystems as illustrations, we moreclosely examine the work demands,learning and resource needs, andavailable supports for principalsgenerated by these new teacherevaluation systems. Drawingdirectly from these findings, as wellas additional literature that reportson the implementation of newteacher evaluation systems acrossthe U.S., we close with a set ofpolicy, practice, and researchrecommendations.

TEACHER EVALUATION ANDTHE WORK OFPRINCIPALS/LOOKINGBACKHistorically, the principal role wasloosely defined as independentteacher leader, primarily engagedin instructional leadership andsupport.16 As school districtsbecame more bureaucratized, sodid the principalship. Over time,the role evolved into one of amiddle-manager, primarilyresponsible for enforcing district,state, and federal policies whilesimultaneously supporting theinstructional practices of teachers.17

Yet, even within this moreformalized framework, research hasshown that principals spend theirtime engaged in myriad activitiesnot well captured by the term“middle-manager”. The work ofPeterson,18 for example,documented the ever-expandingprincipal role, which involved thecompletion of literally hundreds oftasks each day, with as many as 50or 60 occurring in a single hour.These can involve everything fromdata requests from central office todealing with student and parentconflicts. Documenting where suchtasks occurred, a recent study

revealed that principals in theMiami-Dade school district spentabout half (54%) of their time intheir office and 40% in variousplaces around the school, with theremainder of the time spent offcampus.19 Moreover, theseprincipals engaged in instructionalleadership activities roughly 13% ofthe time, which includes 8% of thetime spent in classrooms.

Research has found that while themovement from more traditional tostandards-based evaluationsystems continues to beparticularly time consuming workfor school leaders, it is alsocharacterized by new complexitiesthat will likely need to benegotiated by principals as thesesystems are enacted.20 Halversonand colleagues, for example, foundthat teacher evaluation activitiesassociated with theimplementation of a newstandards-aligned system“absorbed as much as 25% ofprincipals’ time.”21 Time demandsas well as general concerns forteacher motivation may encourageprincipals to inflate evaluationratings either to give teachers thebenefit of the doubt or to cultivatepositive and stronger responses to

16 Kate Rousmaniere, The Principal’s Office: A Social History of the American School Principal (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2013.17 Rousmaniere, The Principal’s Office.18 Kent D. Peterson, “The Roar of Complexity: A Principal’s Day is Built on Fragments of Tasks and Decisions,” Journal of Staff Development 22, no.

1(2001): 18.19 Eileen Horng, Daniel Klasik, and Susanna Loeb, “Principal’s Time Use and School Effectiveness,” American Journal of Education 116, no. 4(2010):

491.20 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems”; Steven Kimball, “Analysis of Feedback, Enabling Conditions, and

Fairness Perceptions of Teachers in Three School Districts with New Standards-Based Evaluation Systems,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation inEducation 16, no. 4 (2002): 241; Steven Kimball and Anthony Milanowski, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity and Decision Making with aStandards-Based Evaluation System,” Educational Administration Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2009): 34.

21 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems,” 34.


policyBRIEF


evaluation ratings.22 Likewise, bothtime demands and principal skillcan impact the overall quality ofprincipal feedback to teachers23 andevaluation accuracy.24 Theserealities, combined with limitedtraining and oversight by schooldistricts,25 reduce the potentialimpact of standards-based teacherevaluation systems.

New teacher evaluation systems,intended to ratchet up themonitoring of teaching and teacheraccountability more generally, mayalso prove challenging for principalsto enact due a school’s history andculture. Historically, manyprincipals’ prior evaluationpractices, influenced in part by thenumber of individuals thatprincipals supervised and bydecentralized and loosely connectedorganizational structures withinschools,26 tended to avoid closeinspection of classroom practices.27

Such practices are likely to have hadimportant consequences for aschool’s culture by shaping howfaculty members have come tounderstand issues of instructionalautonomy and control.28 With this in

mind, new evaluation systems havepotential to challenge existingcultures of teacher autonomy andinstructional control, where suchcultures have been cultivated, and inthese instances threaten the“normative balance” of schools.29

Because teacher expectations havebeen shown to influence howprincipals’ “work to influenceteacher effectiveness,”30 principalswill benefit from guidance to helpthem navigate such cultural issueswithin their schools. Otherwise, newevaluation systems are likely to beenacted in a superficial manner asprincipals seek to “maintain apositive sense of community.”31

Likewise, these new accountability-driven teacher evaluation systemscan put pressure on existingprincipal-teacher relationships thatmay force changes in the ways inwhich principals and teachers relateand work. Such systems havepotential for introducing greaterlevels of principal authority that mayconflict with leadership orientationsemphasizing more collegial andshared leadership approaches.32

Principal-teacher trust is a critical if

These new

accountability-

driven teacher

evaluation systems

can put pressure on

existing principal-

teacher

relationships that

may force changes

in the ways in which

principals and

teachers relate and

work.

22 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems”; Kimball andMilanowski, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity”.

23 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems”; Kimball, “Analysis ofFeedback”; Lauren Sartain, Sara Ray Stoelinga, and Eric R. Brown, Rethinking TeacherEvaluation in Chicago: Lessons Learned from Classroom Observations, Principal-TeacherConferences, and District Implementation (Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago SchoolResearch, 2011).

24 Kimball and Milanowski, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity”.25 Kimball, “Analysis of Feedback”; Kimball and Milanowski, “Examining Teacher Evaluation

Validity”.26 Meyer & Rowan, Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,

American Journal of Sociology 83 (1977). Weick, “Educational Organizations as Loosely CoupledSystems,” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1975).

27 Jeannie Myung and Krissia Martinez, Strategies for Enhancing Post-Observation Feedback toTeachers (Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2013).

28 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems”.29 Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy, “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement”.30 Morgaen Donaldson, “Principal Approaches to Cultivate Teacher Effectiveness: Constraints and

Opportunities in Hiring, Assigning, Evaluating, and Developing Teachers”, EducationalAdministration Quarterly 49, no. 1 (2013): 871.

31 Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy, “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement,” 37.32 Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy, “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement”.


policyBRIEF

6

teacher evaluation systems are tosupport teacher growth,33 andtrusting relationships can easily beundermined if teachers do notreceive sufficient information andtraining on new teacher evaluationsystems.34

Lastly, research on standards-basedevaluation systems suggests thatprincipals are likely to needextensive training and ongoingsupport to develop the necessaryunderstandings and skills toproductively enact new teacherevaluation practices. Kimball andMilanowki35 examined the use ofstandards-based teacher evaluationsystems and concluded that itwould “take more than specificrubrics and basic training” forprincipals and other evaluators toproductively enact new teacherevaluation systems.

TEACHER EVALUATION ANDTHE WORK OF PRINCIPALS:CURRENT PRACTICE The following section describes thekey components of new teacherevaluation systems that are beingpiloted or enacted throughout theUS. Focusing on components ofthese systems that have particularconsequence to principals, theirdevelopment, and their work, wefirst detail: a) the examination ofteacher practice; b) theestablishment and monitoring ofteachers’ student learningobjectives; c) the execution of theyearly evaluation cycle; and d) the

management of evaluationevidence. This discussion drawsheavily on three states that we haveselected as case studies to illustratekey evaluation system components.These case studies also allow us toexplore new roles andresponsibilities required ofprincipals associated with teacherevaluation, new state-wideapproaches for holding principalsaccountable for teacher evaluation,and the kinds and range ofstatewide training that has beenprovided to principal. These stateswere selected because theyillustrate different teacherevaluation designs. They have alsobeen subject to pilot testing andhave disseminated reports frominitial pilot evaluation studies thatare instructive for consideringissues of importance whenpreparing principals to enact thesenew systems. In addition to pilotimplementation study findingsfrom these three states, we alsodraw on a broader assortment ofstate-wide and district teacherevaluation pilot implementationfindings to highlight new workdemands and learning/resourceneeds likely to emerge as forprincipals who are charged withenacting these new evaluationsystems.

Table 1 provides a summary of thekey components of each state’steacher evaluation system,principal (and other evaluator)roles in evaluation process and newstate-wide approaches for holdingprincipals accountable for teacher

evaluation, and state-providedtraining and support for principals(and other evaluators). Takencollectively, we view new teacherevaluation systems as pressingprincipals to develop newprocedural understandings of theevaluation system, enhance theirconceptual understandings ofteacher practice and StudentLearning Objective (SLO)processes, expand their skills withthe collection and management oflarge volumes of evidence across abroad assortment of data sources,and develop new skills forproviding meaningful evidence-informed feedback to teachers.

THE EXAMINATION OFTEACHER PRACTICEAs one component of teacherevaluation systems, states usemeasures of teaching practice,which typically require principalsto collect a range of evidence that isassessed using a teacher practicerubric. Teacher practice rubrics arealigned to standards andcommonly define teaching acrossfour domains: instructionalplanning, classroom environment,instructional activities, andprofessional responsibilities.Domains are further broken downby elements or components thatrepresent teaching competencies.The competencies are typicallyassessed using a range of datasources, with an emphasis onclassroom observations. Othersources include teacher planning

33 Myung and Martinez, Strategies for Enhancing Post-Observation Feedback to Teachers. Wieland Wermke, “Teachers’ Trust in Knowledge Sources forContinuing Professional Development: Investigating Trust and Trustworthiness in School Systems,” in Trust and School Life: The Role of Trust forLearning, Teaching, leading and Bridging Up, eds. Dimitri Van Maele, Patrick B. Forsyth, and Mieke Van Houtte, (New York, NY: Spring 2014). 335-352.

34 Sartain, Stoelinga, and Brown, Rethinking Teacher Evaluation in Chicago.35 Kimball and Milanowski, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity,” 65.


policyBRIEF


a Information obtained 1-24-14 from Ohio Department of Education website: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System

b To view the TEAM rubric, please visit http://team-tn.org/assets/educator-resources/TEAM_Educator_Rubric.pdfc To view the Common Core of Teaching rubric, please visit www.connecticutseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CCT_Instrument_and_Rubric.

pdf

Table 1: Evaluation System Measures, Principal Roles, and Training/Support for Three States

Evaluation system feature Tennessee Connecticut Ohioa

Teacher EvaluationSystem Overview

Tennessee EducatorAcceleration Model (TEAM)

Tested Teachers50% Teacher Practice15% Student Achievement35% Student Growth

Non-Tested Teachers60% Teacher Practice15% Student Achievement25% Student Growth

Connecticut System forEducator Evaluation andDevelopment (SEED)

All Teachers40% Teacher Practice45% Student Growth and

Development10% Parent or Peer Feedback5% School-wide Student

Learning or StudentFeedback

Ohio Teacher PerformanceEvaluation System (OTPES)

All Teachers50% Teacher Practice50% Teacher Growth

Teacher Practice Measures All teachers evaluatedannually using the TEAMrubric.b The rubric includes 3domains and 19components.

1-4 formal observations perteacher (depending oneffectiveness rating)

Evaluators collect otherevidence, such asinstructional plans, studentwork, and other teachingmaterials, as part of theevaluation process

All teachers evaluatedannually using the CommonCore of Teaching rubric.c Therubric includes 5 domainsand 17 indicators.

3-8 observations per year,both formal (at least 30minutes) and informal (nofewer than 10 minutes).Number of observationsbased on teacher’seffectiveness rating.

Evaluators collect otherevidence, such as teachingartifacts, lesson plans, teacherrecords, and reflections ofteaching as part of theevaluation process.

All teachers evaluatedannually using state-developed rubric aligned tostate teaching standards.High performing teachersmay be evaluated bi-annually at districtoption. The rubric includes3 domains and 10components.

Districts may also developtheir own evaluationmodels and rubrics alignedto state standards.

2, 30-minute observationsrequired. Scoring isexpected after eachobservation andconference cycle.

Evaluators collect otherevidence from pre-and –post observationdiscussions, walkthroughs,student data analysis, andreview of professional planand activities as part of theevaluation process.


policyBRIEF

8

Evaluation system feature Tennessee Connecticut Ohio

Student Outcomes One student growth measureand one studentachievement measure perteacher annually

Educators and evaluatorsselect and agree uponstudent growth andachievement measures

Tested Teachers• Value-added measure

provided by the state (35%of total evaluation)

• State-approved studentachievement measure (15%of total evaluation)d

Non-Tested Teachers• Student growth measures

selected and approved byeducators and evaluators(25% of total evaluation)e

• State-approved studentachievement measure (15%of total evaluation)

All teachers write two StudentLearning Objectives (SLOs)annually (45% of totalevaluation). The SLO processrequires evaluators toapprove, monitor, and scoreSLO results annually for allteachers.f

Districts decide to use Whole-School Student LearningIndicator or StudentFeedback as the additional5% of teachers’ evaluations

Whole-School StudentLearning Indicators forteachers equal the aggregateof student learning indicatorsestablished by the schooladministrator as part of hisor her evaluation rating(typically a schoolperformance index and SLOs)

Results from a staterecommended student surveyinstrument comprise theStudent Feedback portion ofa teacher’s evaluation.Teachers and their evaluatorsshould agree upon atleast one student feedbackgoal.g

All teachers: 3 assessment typeswill be used, depending on theavailability of test data forspecific teachers. These includevalue-added results, statedepartment approved vendorassessments, or locallydetermined measures. Districtswill decide which measuresapply to different teachersituations.

Tested teachers• Value-added growth model

applied to teachers in testedgrades/subjects

• Mix of other vendorassessments or LEAassessment measures used forteachers who do not testedgrades or who do not teach intested grades/subjects. Theproportion of alternativeassessments and growthmeasures applied ranges from10-50%.

• Student learning Objectives orschool or shared attributionmeasures (e.g., school value-added) may be used for LEAdetermined measures ofteachers who do not haveteacher value added or vendorassessments available

Other Evaluation Measures None Parent Feedback surveyconducted at the whole-school level, 2-3 school goals,agreed upon by principalsand teachers. Districts maysubmit a plan to the state ifthey wish to use peerfeedback in lieu of parentfeedback.

None

d To see a list of Tennessee state-approved student achievement measures, please visit http://team-tn.org/assets/misc/15%25%20Achievement%20Measure%20Options_12_13%285%29.pdf

e To see Tennessee Department of Education guidance on growth measures for non-tested teachers, please visit http://team-tn.org/assets/educator-resources/NTGS_Update_12_20.pdf

f To learn more about the SEED SLO process, please visit www.connecticutseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SLO_Handbook.pdfg See the SEED Handbook at www.connecticutseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013_SEED_Handbook.pdf to learn more about parent

feedback, student feedback, and whole-school student learning indicators


policyBRIEF



Evaluation ManagementSystem

Comprehensive On-lineData Entry (CODE) system

Evaluators use CODE toenter walkthrough andformal observation data,submit and rate studentachievement and growthmeasures, rate teacherperformance based onobservations and evidencecollected, and calculate finalteacher evaluation ratings.Evaluators can also generatereports in CODE to track andmonitor evaluation results.h

My Learning Plan andBloomBoard

2012-13 pilot districts usedMy Learning Plan to manageevaluation system data.Documentation indicatedthat during the 2013-14school year, evaluators useBloomBoard to manageevaluation system data.

State has developed an on-lineevaluation management system(eTPES)

eTPES is used to uploadevidence for observations,artifacts. It includes evaluationplanning and final evaluationforms. Outcome data isuploaded into eTPES and finalscore calculations occur withon-line management system.

Principal/Evaluator Role- Expectations- Accountability

Evaluators complete annualevaluations for all teachers,including:

• Beginning of year coachingconversations

• Observations

• Pre- and post-observationconferences

• Mid-year reviewconversations

• End of year summativeevaluation conferences

Principals overseeevaluations conducted byother evaluators (such asassistant principals andcertified school leaders).

The TennesseeAdministrator EvaluationRubric holds principalsaccountable for the qualityof teacher evaluations,teacher feedback, and use ofteacher evaluation data toreflect on trends.i

Evaluators complete annualevaluations for all teachers,including:

• Beginning of year goalsetting and planningconferences

• Observations

• Post-observationconferences

• Mid-year check-inconferences


The Common Core ofLeading Leader EvaluationRubric is used to assessprincipals for completingstaff evaluations; how wellthey provide feedback toimprove instruction; theextent of teacher reflection,and the provision of qualityprofessional developmentand resources.j

Evaluators engage with teacherson annual evaluation cycle thatincludes:

• Professional developmentplanning & goal setting

• Observations

• Pre-and-post observationconferences

• Walkthroughs


Highly rated teachers mayselect their evaluator as long asthe evaluator is certified.

The Ohio Principal EvaluationSystem rubric includes areference to principalscompleting teacher evaluationsper district guidelines and thequality of performancefeedback provided to teachers.Among suggested observationvenues, principal evaluatorscould include an evaluationconference with a teacher orstaff members.

h For more information on the CODE system, please visit www.tn.gov/education/team/videos.shtmli Visit http://team-tn.org/assets/misc/Administrator%20Evaluation%20Rubric_13-14.pdf to view the Tennessee Administrator Evaluation Rubricj Visit www.connecticutseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SEED_Administrator_Rubric.pdf to view the Common Core of Leading Rubric


policyBRIEF

10


Evaluator training Four-day evaluator trainingincludes training on theTEAM rubric and CODEsystem.

One-day recertificationtraining for evaluators.

Additional training online

Five-day training sessions foradministrators who evaluateteachers, addressing all fourcomponents of the teacherevaluation system.

One-day recalibrationtraining for evaluators.

Additional regional trainingson coaching, three-hourBloomBoard training.

Evaluators must completestate-developed training.Training is provided at regionaleducational service centers andspans 2.5 days. It covers: 1)overview of the teacherevaluation system; 2) practiceobservation techniques (i.e.,scripting), analyzing,categorizing and coding;coaching.

Completing the training andpassing the assessment leads toa required evaluator credential.

Half-day training also providedon decision making and dataentry for student growthmeasures.

A series of training modules areavailable on the electronicevaluation management systemeTPES on the Ohio Departmentof Education Websitek

Other evaluator support Not clear Educators who are evaluator-certified and trained mayevaluate teachers.

Districts may elect to train peerteachers to evaluate teachers.

k eTPES website: education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching?Educator-Evaluation-System/District-educator-Evaluation-Sustems/eTPES-Help


policyBRIEF


documents, examples of studentwork, and documentation andreflection on professional activities.

The three states we reviewedrequire principals and otherevaluators to take part in training tolearn the content of new teacherpractice rubrics and how to identifyand assess particular teachingpractices. Training also includeslearning about the types and rangeof data sources that are informativefor documenting teacher practice,processes forcollecting/documenting data, andcoaching techniques to providequality feedback to teachers.Nationally, about 20 states have orare planning to provide trainingresources and some level ofevaluator “certification.”36

All case study states held in-persontraining for evaluators prior to theimplementation of the new teacherevaluation systems. TheConnecticut State Department ofEducation (CSDE) held regional,five-day training sessions tofamiliarize evaluators with thestate’s Common Core of Teachingrubric.37 All evaluators wererequired to complete thesesessions. The CSDE also offeredone- and two-day recalibrationtraining sessions for evaluators whoneeded additional support to passthe state evaluator proficiency

exam.38 The Tennessee Departmentof Education (TNDOE) held arequired four-day training sessionsduring the summer of 2011 toprepare evaluators to implement itsnew Tennessee EducatorAcceleration Model (TEAM) rubricand evaluation system39 and a one-day recertification training forevaluators in the summer of 2012.40

The Ohio Department of Education(ODE) offered a required two and ahalf-day training session tofamiliarize evaluators with the stateevaluation system.41 In addition totraining, all three states requireevaluators to pass an assessment toobtain actual certification prior toconducting teacher evaluations.Teacher evaluation guidebooks andadditional online training resourcesare available on each state’swebsite.

THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDMONITORING OFTEACHERS’ STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVES States use different measures ofstudent growth and/orachievement within their teacherthe evaluation systems. Forteachers in tested grades andsubjects,42 states typically either usestudent growth percentile modelsor value-added models.43 Value-

added and student growthpercentiles are statistical modelsthat measure student academicgrowth from one year to the next.They are generally calculated at thestate level and provided to districtsby the state department ofeducation. In addition to or in placeof these student measures, agrowing number of new evaluationsystems also use StudentLearning/Growth Objectives/Goals(typically abbreviated as SLOs,SGOs or SGGs), particularly forteachers in grades and subjects thatlack state standardizedassessments. In some cases,however, states also require or allowSLOs as an additional measure forteachers in tested grades andsubjects.

Although SLOs may represent a keyaspect of sound instructional design(i.e., identifying student learningneeds, targeting instructionalimprovement strategies, settinggrowth targets, and measuringresults), the formal use of SLOs in ateacher evaluation system generatesadditional work and deeper levels ofassessment expertise for bothteachers and principals. The typicalSLO process currently beingplanned or implemented in over 30states across the country involvesteachers or principals in the reviewof appropriate student baselinedata, selection of assessments or

36 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, “ Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies”.37 Morgaen Donaldson et al., “An Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development,”

http://aftct.org/sites/aftct.org/files/neag_seed_report_1_1_14.pdf.38 Connecticut State Department of Education, “Events,” http://www.connecticutseed.org/?page_id=997.39 Tennessee Department of Education, “Teacher Evaluation in Tennessee: A Report on Year 1 Implementation,” A report on Year 1 implementation.

Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/education/doc/yr_1_tchr_eval_rpt.pdf.40 Tennessee Department of Education, “TEAM Summer 2012 Training Plan,” http://team-tn.org/assets/educator-resources/TEAM_Summer_2012_

Training_Plan.pdf.41 Ohio Department of Education, “Teacher Evaluation,” last modified 2014 http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-

System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System.42 Teachers in tested grades are those teachers who can be directly linked to the standardized test scores of a particular group of students, typically

by grade level and/or subject matter.43 Hull, “Trends in Teacher Evaluation”.


policyBRIEF

12

evidence sources that are appropriatefor measuring student growth over adesignated period of time, settingand then obtaining approval ofgrowth targets for students, andassessing the progress that teachershave made with SLO goals by the endof the designated instructionalperiod.44 This process engagesleaders with SLO planning andmonitoring sessions with individualor groups of teachers45 as facets ofyearly evaluation cycle meetings.Equally important, this new stream ofwork necessitates that principals aregood judges of high-qualityassessments and growth targets forteacher SLOs across multiple subjects(reading, math, PE, art, etc). It doesnot appear that any of the states wereviewed provided separate, in-person training sessions forevaluators on the SLO process;however, all states provide someonline guidance to assist educatorsand evaluators in the development ofstudent growth measures. Forexample, the Ohio Department ofEducation website features an SLOguidebook and additional resourceson data analysis, writing andreviewing SLOs, assessment literacy,and SLO examples.46

THE EXECUTION OF THEYEARLY EVALUATION CYCLEThe typical annual teacher

evaluation cycle involves a variety ofsteps from the beginning to the endof the year, which necessitates thatprincipals hold multiple meetingsand conferences with teachers todiscuss evaluation systemcomponents, review evidence andgoals, provide feedback, and discussresults. A common feature of thesecycles is a flow of documentationthat principals complete as evidencethat particular evaluation steps havebeen completed.

Connecticut, Ohio, and Tennessee,for example, all require teachers andprincipals to engage in a beginningof year planning and goal settingmeeting to set annual teacherpractice and student growth goals.All three states also requireprincipals to conduct pre- and post-conferences before and afterannounced observations, mid-yearreview conversations to discussteacher progress, and end-of-yearsummative evaluation conferencesto review and discuss finalevaluation results.47 Each of thesesteps requires teachers andevaluators to completedocumentation, which creates workflow demands for principals. Thefollowing section describes howteacher and principals in thesestates will manage evaluationdocumentation.

44 For more information on SLOs, please see the Connecticut SLO Handbook at www.connecticut-seed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ SLO_Handbook.pdf and the Ohio SLO Handbook athttp://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples/071513_SLO_Guidebook_FINAL.docx. aspx

45 In some states, teachers can collaborate on the SLO process.46 Ohio Department of Education, “Local Measures,” http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/

Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples.

47 Connecticut State Department of Education, “2013 SEED Handbook: Connecticut’s System forEducator Evaluation and Development,” www.connecticutseed.orgwp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013_SEED_Handbook.pdf; Tennessee Department of Education, “TEAM EvaluationTimeline,” http://team-tn.org/assets/educator-resources/TEAM_Evaluation_Timeline.pdf.

The formal use of

student learning

objectives in a

teacher evaluation

system generates

additional work and

deeper levels of

assessment

expertise for both

teachers and

principals.


policyBRIEF


THE MANAGEMENT OFEVALUATION EVIDENCEMany states have developed orcontracted for online evaluationmanagement systems to helpteachers and principals organizeevidence sources anddocumentation reports related tonew teacher evaluationcomponents. Ohio, for example,used RTT funding to develop theelectronic Teacher and PrincipalEvaluation System (eTPES) withwhich evaluators enter observationnotes, view uploaded teachingartifacts, and complete forms forevaluation planning and finalevaluations. Teachers also haveaccess to the eTPES to uploadteaching artifacts and completeevaluation forms. Using the system,principals plan evaluation activities,store and retrieve notes anddocuments (evaluation evidence),and provide ratings based on theevidence. Outcome data is alsouploaded into the eTPES and finalscore calculations are facilitatedthrough the system.48 These onlinemanagement systems have greatpotential to eventually streamlineplanning, documentation, andassessment processes, but each alsorequires time to learn newtechnology and adapt to the newsystems. All three states provide in-person and online training andprofessional development related tothese online management systemsto help evaluators learn the use ofthese systems.

PRINCIPALACCOUNTABILITY FORQUALITY IMPLEMENTATIONOF NEW TEACHEREVALUATION SYSTEMS In general, new principal evaluationsystems, designed and enacted atthe same time as new teacherevaluation systems, are placinggreater levels of accountability onschool principals for the effectiveevaluation of teachers. These newprincipal evaluation systems mirrorteacher evaluation systems throughthe use of principal practice rubricsthat specify standards-aligneddomains of leader practice.49 Theprincipal evaluation rubrics in bothConnecticut and Ohio, for example,include references to the teacherevaluation process and quality ofprincipal feedback to teachers. TheTennessee principal evaluationrubric is also used to assess principalpractice in relation to teacherevaluation. However, the Tennesseerubric also includes a separatedomain, worth 15% of a principal’soverall evaluation rating, thatspecifically assesses how well theadministrator implements theteacher evaluation process,including the quality of teacherevaluation feedback, the fidelity ofimplementing the teacherevaluation process, and principalmonitoring teacher evaluationresults for consistency (i.e., whenthere are multiple evaluators withinschools). By evaluating principals onhow well they carry out the teacherevaluation process and provideeffective feedback to teachers, these

In general, new

principal evaluation

systems, designed

and enacted at the

same time as new

teacher evaluation

systems, are

placing greater

levels of

accountability on

school principals

for the effective

evaluation of

teachers.

48 Ohio Department of Education, “Teacher Evaluations”.49 A common example here is the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)

standards.


policyBRIEF

14

50 Donaldson et al., “An Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development”.51 Ohio Department of Education, “Ohio Department of Education Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) Pilot”,

http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Additional-Information/5150-OTES-Final-Report-Appendices.pdf.aspx.

52 Donaldson et al., “An Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development”.53 Donaldson et al., “An Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development”.54 See Government Accountability Office, Race to the Top: States Implementing Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems Despite Challenges GAO-13-

777, (Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, 2013).55 To be sure, there is some evidence to suggest that principal time demands associated with the enactment of these new systems are likely to be

reduced as leaders deepen their conceptual understanding and process experience.56 Ohio Department of Education, “Ohio Department of Education Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) Pilot”; Donaldson et al., “An Evaluation of the

Pilot Implementation of Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development”; Tennessee Department of Education, “TEAM Summer2012 Training Plan”.

states are signaling the strategicimportance of the principal’s role inidentifying and supportingteaching quality. This alignmentcan help improve the chances thatthe teacher evaluation processeswill be implemented with fidelity.

NEW STATE TEACHEREVALUATION PILOT ANDRELATED RESEARCHFINDINGSExternal evaluation reportsgenerated about the piloting of newteacher evaluation systems in ourcase study states of Connecticut,Tennessee, and Ohio found thatadministrators realized increasedwork and time demands with thenew teacher evaluation systems. InConnecticut, evaluators of teachersreported that they spent more timeon evaluation activities than inprior years. Seventy-two percent ofadministrator survey respondentsindicated that they spentconsiderably more time than inprevious years evaluating teachers,conducting post conferences, andcompleting requireddocumentation.50 Ohio evaluationparticipants also expressed concernabout the time commitment tocarry out evaluation activities usingthe new model. Even though someprincipals were testing the system

with only one or two teachers, theydoubted their capacity to conductevaluations and provide detailedfeedback for all members of theirstaff given their other roles andresponsibilities.51

Case study pilot evidence alsosuggests that principals are likely tostruggle to complete every elementof the system and may opt to refinesystems in the face of new timedemands generated by thesesystems. The Connecticutevaluation report, for example,indicated that pilot districtadministrators were challengedwith completing all requiredobservations. Principals reportedmaking adaptations to SEEDimplementation and oftencompleted fewer observations andpost-conferences than required. Toaccommodate the implementationof SEED, principal reportedspending less time on non-evaluation tasks and activities,which some felt diminished theirinstructional leadership activities.52

Only 17% of teacher respondentsfelt that their evaluator had thetime and resources to implementSEED.53 These findings areconsistent with other reports on thestate or district implementation ofnew teacher evaluation systemsthat have found principals toinitially struggle to meet the timedemands of new evaluation

systems.54 As such, deliberateattention to adapting daily workroutines to accommodate timedemands brought on by theimplementation of new evaluationsystems appears to be an importantconsideration if these systems areto be enacted with quality byprincipals.55 Beyond conductingobservations and relatedobservation conferences, thedocumentation and managementof evidence sources appears to be anew challenge that must benegotiated by principals.56

LESSONS LEARNED ANDIMPLICATIONS FROM THEPURVIEW OF SCHOOLPRINCIPALSTeacher evaluation innovationspresent both opportunities andchallenges for improvinginstructional supervision andteacher quality. The opportunitiesinclude more comprehensiveteacher evaluation measures;increased instructionaleffectiveness through regular andspecific performance feedback; andthe potential for teacherprofessional growth. Time demandsand cognitive challenges will beinevitable as principals and otherschool leaders learn about andimplement new teacher evaluation


policyBRIEF


systems. Simultaneously, othereducational changes going to scale,including Common Core StateStandards with aligned assessments,and state school accountabilitysystems, will compete for theattention of school leaders andteachers. Negotiating these changesto maximize the positive potential ofevaluation reforms requires acommitment by states and districtsto resources for training and supportas well as policy coherence. We nextprovide several policy and practicerecommendations that could proveinstructive in supporting thesuccessful implementation andsustainability of new teacherevaluation reforms from the purviewof school principals. We concludethis brief with recommendations forfuture research.

POLICYRECOMMENDATIONS Expand the pool of evaluators withparticular emphasis on contentexpertise. Principals can besupported in their teacherevaluation work by identifying andcultivating additional evaluatorsthrough an “outsourcing” of aspectsof teacher evaluation to the districtor regional educational offices. Forexample, district and regionaladministrators, particularly thoseadministrators who are content

experts,57 can be trained to assessteaching videos, artifacts and/orteaching portfolios. These externalassessments could represent a partof the teacher’s overall score. Forcredibility, it would still beimportant for a school leader to beinvolved with the teacher’sevaluation. But the external reviewercould take some of the overallevaluation load from one individual.Further, studies indicate themultiple raters help produce morereliable evaluations58 and content-experts can also generate morecredible feedback than a principalalone.59

Beyond district and regionaladministrators, cadres of teacherscould also be trained to supportteacher evaluation processes. In theCincinnati Public Schools, forexample, teachers have been trainedand subsequently released fromteaching duties for a certain periodto conduct teacher evaluations.60

Such approaches could besupported through state-generatedpolicy recommendations and relatedresources that target theidentification, cultivation anddeployment of additional content-expert teacher evaluators.

Enact more strategic or differentiatedevaluation systems. Recognizing thepotential burden on evaluators fromthe high volume of teacherevaluation processes conducted

Maximizing the

positive potential of

evaluation reforms

requires a

commitment by

states and districts

to resources for

training and support

as well as policy

coherence.

57 Heather C. Hill and Paul Grossman, “Learning from Teacher Observations: Challenges andOpportunities Posed by New Teacher Evaluation Systems,” Harvard Educational Review 83, no. 2(2013): 371.

58 Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of EffectiveTeaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study (Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation, 2013).

59 Hill and Grossman, “Learning from Teacher Observations”.60 Herbet G. Heneman III and Anthony Milanowski, “Continuing Assessment of Teacher Reactions

to a Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation System,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education17, no. 2 (2003): 173; Eric S. Taylor and John H. Tyler, The Effect of Evaluation on Performance:Evidence from Longitudinal Student Achievement Data of Mid-Career Teachers (Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011).


policyBRIEF

16

annually for all teachers, a numberof states and districts are modifyingassessment processes or timelineswith an emphasis on the use of morestrategic or differentiated evaluationsystems.61 Such modificationsreduce yearly evaluationexpectations for highly rated andmore experienced teachers.62 Thisallows evaluators to concentrateassessment, support, and feedbackon less experienced or strugglingeducators. It also allows moreadvanced educators to pursuealternative growth activities, such asaction research or National BoardCertification. Such approachescould be supported through state-generated policy recommendations.

Ensure assessment of and feedback toprincipals on implementation ofteacher evaluation. Each of thestates we reviewed included somemeasures in the new principalevaluation systems for assessinghow well principals are carrying outthe teacher evaluation process.Emphasizing teacher evaluationquality in the principal’s evaluationcreates policy alignment and helpsprioritize the organizationalimperative for reliable and usefulteacher evaluation feedback.Principals also need specificfeedback on how well they and theirschool leaders are doing supportingteaching through the evaluationprocess. This feedback can leadthem to pursue additional training ifneeded in coaching conversations orwith rating calibration.

PRACTICERECOMMENDATIONSAddress principal learning demandsand resource needs/considerations forstates, districts, and leadershippreparation programs. State trainingdesigns that combine both in-person learning experiences led byhighly skilled trainers with targetedon-line training and resources(videos, powerpoint presentations,written guidance) emerge from ourreview of state pilot study findings tooffer a range of supports for initialprincipal training experiences andmay produce better results thandesigns that solely emphasize on-line learning.63 Ongoing learningexperiences provided by both statesand districts that focus on thedevelopment of principals’conceptual understanding ofteacher practice rather thanprocedural execution of theevaluation system are critical to theoverall support of principaldevelopment. In addition to deeperlearning about teacher practice,principals are also likely to needspecific training on how to provideevaluation feedback to teachers inways that promote both teacherreceptivity to the feedback andteacher learning as a result of thefeedback.64 The utilization ofmodule-based formats as a facet ofongoing training supports haveutility because they allow individualprincipals to select more tailoredtraining experiences that align withtheir personal learning needs. Both

61 Taylor White, Evaluating Teachers More Strategically: Using Performance Results to StreamlineEvaluation Systems (Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2014).

62 Danielson and McGreal, Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice; Kennedy,“Attribution Error and the Quest for Teacher Quality”; Kimball, “Analysis of Feedback, EnablingConditions, and Fairness Perceptions of Teachers in Three School Districts”.

63 Firestone et al., Strategies for Training on a Teacher Practice Evaluation Instrument: Advice fromNew Jersey’s Teacher Evaluation Pilot Districts.

64 Myung and Martinez, Strategies for Enhancing Post-Observation Feedback to Teachers.

Ongoing learning

experiences

provided by both

states and districts

that focus on

principals’

conceptual

understanding of

teacher practice

rather than

procedural

execution of the

evaluation system

are critical to the

overall support of

principal

development.


policyBRIEF


the use of videos for individualobservation and scoring of teacherpractice and real-time groupobservation and discussion ofteacher practice through classroomwalk-throughs or similar districtroutines have been reported asuseful in state pilot study findingsand are likely to be key supports forongoing leader learning.65

Districts also play an importantrole in helping principals makesense of new teacher evaluationsystems, particularly in relation toprior district evaluation modelsand other mandated improvementinitiatives expected to beimplemented in concurrent fashionwith the new teacher evaluationsystem.66 Related to the latter,districts should help principalsrecognize the relationships thatexist between various school-wideimprovement initiatives and waysin which these initiatives integratewith one another.67 Theseunderstandings are critical becausethey help principals to cultivatesuch understandings andconnections by teachers.

Principal preparation programs canalso play an important role in thiswork by supporting the learningneeds of candidates who aspire tothe principalship. For this reason,preparation programs would bewise to learn about new stateevaluation systems and activelybuild alignment betweeninstructional leadership courses,principal residency experiences,

and these new systems to cultivatethe kinds of conceptualunderstandings that are essentialfor more robust enactment ofteacher evaluation systems.Likewise, principal candidatesshould become familiar with newprincipal evaluation systems andhow they will be assessed as well asdevelop an understanding of whatproficient and robust levels ofprincipal practice looks like inpractice in the area of teacherevaluation.

District action to support principaladoption and use of teacherevaluation systems. Districts cansupport teacher evaluation moregenerally and principals’ work inthis area in several key ways. First,districts should pay close attentionto providing timely and transparentcommunications to schools andteachers as new teacher evaluationsystems are introduced and wouldbe wise to provide ongoing learningopportunities for teachers todeepen their understandings ofwhat proficient and robustteaching practice looks like. Theseactions can lay the foundation forteachers to develop trust in theteacher evaluation process.68

Second, districts should payattention to the alignment ofvarious district tools and routinesto elements of the teacherevaluation process and to thedevelopment of teacher facilitywith these routines and tools. Forexample, SLO processes are meant

65 Firestone et al., Strategies for Training on a Teacher Practice Evaluation Instrument: Advicefrom New Jersey’s Teacher Evaluation Pilot Districts.

66 Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems”; State of NewJersey Department of Education, “Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee Final Report”.

67 State of New Jersey Department of Education, “Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee FinalReport”.

68 State of New Jersey Department of Education, “Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee FinalReport”.

Principals are likely

to need specific

training on how to

provide evaluation

feedback to

teachers in ways

that promote both

teacher receptivity

to the feedback and

teacher learning as

a result of the

feedback.


policyBRIEF

18

to engage teachers in cycles ofinquiry and data use as amechanism to improve teaching andstudent learning. Helping teachersand principals learn particular data-use routines and gain facility withparticular data-use tools that canpromote success with SLO work69

provides tangible supports for thisfacet of the teacher evaluationprocess. Lastly, districts mightconsider alleviating othermanagement responsibilities fromprincipals’ plates as well as workdirectly with individual principals tohelp them consider and reallocatesome tasks in order to create roomfor new teacher evaluationdemands.

RESEARCHRECOMMENDATIONSGiven that new teacher evaluationsystems are largely in early stages ofimplementation, ongoing research isneeded to deepen understandingabout issues of implementation andimpact. For example, are principalsable to develop the necessaryconceptual understandings tosupport the enactment of robustevaluation practices and are theyalso able to develop productiveapproaches for addressing the newwork demands generated by thesenew systems? Based on comparativecase studies, do certain state ordistrict approaches for initialtraining and ongoing supportgenerate stronger teacher evaluationpractices by school leaders and/orstronger teacher effectiveness? Morebroadly, and drawing on the work of

Hallinger and his colleagues,70 thereis a need for further empiricalstudies to determine whether theheavy investment in teacherevaluation by principals, as expectedby these new evaluation systems,proves to be a viable and scalablestrategy for improving teachereffectiveness and student learning.This assortment of studies wouldprovide critical guidance to policymakers, districts, principalpreparation programs and schoolprincipals.

69 Shelby Cosner, “Leading the On-Going Development of Collaborative Data Practices: Advancinga Schema for Diagnosis and Intervention,” Leadership and Policy in Schools 11, no. 1(2012): 26.

70 Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy, “Principal’s Time Use and School Effectiveness”.

Districts should pay

attention to the

alignment of various

district tools and

routines to elements

of the teacher

evaluation process

and to the

development of

teacher facility with

these routines and

tools.


policyBRIEF


ABOUT USThe Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based inthe University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the mostsignificant problems facing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently failsto reflect what we know and what we do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying.Instead of being polemic and grounded primarily in ideology, public conversations about education shouldbe constructive and informed by the best available evidence.

OUR MISSIONRUEPI’s work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy inChicago and other urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issuesfacing these areas, including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacherworkforce policy. We offer timely analysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best availableevidence.

OUR APPROACHGiven RUEPI’s mission, the project’s work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are notgrounded in any particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay afoundation for ensuring that debates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of howeducation policies have fared in the past. The principles are as follows:

• Education policies should be coherent and strategic

• Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms

• Education policies should account for local context

RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of Education and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

Learn more at http://ruepi.uic.edu

CONTACT US

[email protected]://ruepi.uic.edu

facebook.com/ruepi

FOLLOW US

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

1040 West Harrison StreetChicago, Illinois 60607

Principal Roles, Work Demands, and Supports Needed to Implement New Teacher Evaluation

Documents

Transcript of Principal Roles, Work Demands, and Supports Needed to Implement New Teacher Evaluation