description: tags: rel 2007030

8/14/2019 description: tags: REL 2007030

1/37

I S S U E S& AN SWER S

U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n

Examiningdistrict guidance

to schoolson teacherevaluationpolicies in the

Midwest Region

R E L 2 0 0 7 N o . 0 3 0

At Learning Points Associates


2/37


3/37

Examining district guidance to

schools on teacher evaluation

policies in the Midwest Region

November 2007

Prepared by

Chris BrandtLearning Point Associates

Carrie MathersLearning Point Associates

Michelle OlivaLearning Point Associates

Melissa Brown-SimsLearning Point Associates

Jean HessLearning Point Associates

I S S U E S&ANSWERS R E L 2 0 0 7 N o . 0 3 0

U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n

At Learning Point Associates


4/37

Issues & Answers is an ongoing series o reports rom short-term Fast Response Projects conducted by the regional educa-

tional laboratories on current education issues o importance at local, state, and regional levels. Fast Response Project topicschange to reect new issues, as identied through lab outreach and requests or assistance rom policymakers and educa-

tors at state and local levels and rom communities, businesses, parents, amilies, and youth. All Issues & Answers reports

meet Institute o Education Sciences standards or scientically valid research.

November 2007

Tis report was prepared or the Institute o Education Sciences (IES) under Contract ED-06-CO-0019 by Regional Educa-

tional Laboratory Midwest administered by Learning Point Associates. Te content o the publication does not necessar-

ily reect the views or policies o IES or the U.S. Department o Education nor does mention o trade names, commercial

products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Tis report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, it should be cited as:

Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007).Examining district guidance to schools on teacher

evaluation policies in the Midwest Region (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007No. 030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

o Education, Institute o Education Sciences, National Center or Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional

Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved rom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Tis report is available on the regional educational laboratory web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

WA

OR

ID

MT

NV

CA

UT

AZ

WY

ND

SD

NE

KS

CO

NM

TX

OK

CO

AR

LA

MSAL GA

SC

NC

VAWV

KY

TN

PA

NY

FL

AK

MN

WI

IA

IL IN

MI

OH

VT

NH

ME

MO

At Learning Point Associates


5/37

ii i

Summary

This descriptive study provides a snap-

shot of teacher evaluation policies across

a demographically diverse sample of dis-

tricts in the Midwest Region. It aims to lay

the groundwork for further research and

inform conversations about current poli-

cies at the local, district, and state levels.

Eective teaching is a cornerstone o educa-

tion reorm (Whitehurst, 2002) and is critical

or student academic achievement. But teach-

ers abilities to promote student learning vary

within and across schools (Aaronson, Barrow,

& Sander, 2003; Nye, Konstantopolous, &

Hedges, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005;

Rocko, 2004). Research nds that an impor-

tant tool or improving teacher eectiveness is

the teacher evaluation (Danielson & McGreal,

2000; Howard & McColskey, 2001; Shinkeld

& Stuebean, 1995; Stronge, 1995). Federal

highly qualied teacher requirements have led

to a surge o state and local education agencies

developing new systems to evaluate teachers.

But studies o evaluation policies and their

inuence on teacher practice are scarce

(Peterson, 2000), and the ew that exist are

usually descriptive, outdated, and leave many

questions unanswered. For example,

What does the landscape o teacher evalu-

ation policy at the district level look like

today?

What can be learned about the policy pro-

cess by examining district documents?

Tis studywhich tries to answer these two

questionsis the rst systematic eort to

describe evaluation policies across a demo-

graphically diverse sample o districts in the

Midwest Region. School district policy or

evaluating teachers varies widely across the

regionboth in the evaluation practices speci-

ed in the policy documents and in the details

o the policy prescriptions.

Tis study examines district evaluation policy

documents or evidence o 13 common teacher

evaluation practices (Ellett & Garland, 1987;

Loup, Garland, Ellett, & Rugutt, 1996). In

general, district policy documents were more

apt to speciy the processes involved in teacher

Emii itrit ie t

teer eti

iie i te Miwet Rei


6/37

i Summary

evaluation (who conducts the evaluation, when,

and how oen) than they were to provide

guidance or the content o the evaluation, the

standards by which the evaluation would be

conducted, or the use o the evaluation results.District policies also varied in how specic

they were, though the tendency was to be less,

rather than more, specic or the 13 evaluation

practices examined. wo-thirds o the district

teacher evaluation policy documents provided

guidance or ewer than hal o the 13 practices.

No policies specied more than 10 evaluation

practices, and nearly 16 percent reected none

o these practices. Te most commonly reer-

enced practice was how oen evaluations are

to be conducted (67 percent), ollowed by what

evaluation tools are to be used (59 percent) and

what methods are to be used (49 percent).

Te study also nds that Midwest Region dis-

tricts evaluate teachers primarily to help de-

cide whether to retain or release new teachers.School principals and administrators do most

o the evaluations and, at the districts direc-

tion, ocus on beginning teachers. Beginning

teachers are typically evaluated two or more

times a year, and experienced teachers just

once every two or three years. Several other

patterns emerge rom the ndings:

Many district policies distinguish between

beginning and experienced teachers.

Few policies spell out consequences or

unsatisactory evaluations.

Few districts reerence using resources or

guidance to support evaluations.

Most evaluations are summative reports

used to support decisions about retaining

teachers and granting tenure, rather than

or proessional development.

Few district policies require evaluators to

be trained.

Vague terminology leaves evaluation poli-

cies open to interpretation.

Te specicity o policy and procedures

varies across districts.

Te reports ndings lay the groundwork or

additional research, identiying several ques-

tions that need urther investigation:

What is the role o state departments

o education in the teacher evaluation

process?

How do policy variations aect teacher

evaluation at the local level?

What is the inuence o district policy in

evaluating beginning teachers, tenured

teachers, and unsatisactory teachers?

What is the impact o dierent evalu-

ation models and practices on teacher

eectiveness?

November 2007


7/37

TablE o conTEnTs

Why this report? 1

Te literature on evaluation policies 2Evaluation policies and purposes 3

Evaluation practices 3

Addressing questions le unanswered by the literature 4

eacher evaluation policy in the Midwest Region 5

Common patterns in teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest Region 7Many district policies distinguish between beginning and experienced teachers 7Fewer than hal the policies detail how results are to be used 7Few districts reerenced using resources or guidance to support evaluations 7Most evaluations are used or summative reports rather than or proessional development 8Few district policies require evaluators to be trained 8

Vague terminology leaves evaluation policies open to interpretation 8

Appendix A Methodology 9

Appendix B Study fndings by research question 12

Appendix C Description o teacher evaluation study stratifed random sample 18

Appendix D Summative teacher evaluation orm 21

Appendix E Formative teacher evaluation orm 25

Reerences 26

Notes 29

Boxes

1 Data and methodology 5

A1 Research questions 10

ables

1 Percentage o districts speciying evaluation practices within teacher evaluation policy documents 6

A1 Sample demographic characteristics and response rate 9

A2 Sample district participation rates by state 10

C1 Number o school districts in the region and in the sample by state 18

C2 Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility by region and by sample 18

C3 Minority student population by region and by sample 18

C4 District locale by state, regional data 19

C5 District locale by state, sample data 19


8/37

i

C6 Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, regional data 19

C7 Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, sample data 20

C8 Minority student population, regional data 20

C9 Minority student population, sample data 20


9/37

Why thiS report? 1

Ti eritiet rie

t teeretiiie r emriiere me itrit i teMiwet Rei.It im t terwrk rrter reer

irmertit rretiie t te, itrit, tte ee.

Why ThIs REpoRT?

Eective teaching is a cornerstone o educa-

tion reorm (Whitehurst, 2002) and is critical

or student academic achievement. But teachers

abilities to promote student learning vary both

within and across schools (Aaronson, Barrow, &

Sander, 2003; Nye, Konstantopolous, & Hedges,

2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rocko,

2004). Research nds that an important element

or improving teacher eectiveness is the teacher

evaluation (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Howard& McColskey, 2001; Shinkeld & Stuebean, 1995;

Stronge, 1995). Federal highly qualied teacher

requirements have led to a surge o states and local

education agencies developing new systems to

evaluate teachers.

But while new evaluation systems emerge, stud-

ies o evaluation policies and their inuence on

teacher practice remain scarce (Peterson, 2000),

and the ew that exist are usually descriptive,

outdated, and leave many questions unanswered.For example,

What does the landscape o teacher evaluation

policy look like today?

What can be learned about the policy process

by examining district documents?

Tis studywhich tries to answer these two

questionsis the rst systematic eort to describe

evaluation policies across a demographically

diverse sample o districts in the Midwest Region.School district policy or evaluating teachers varies

widely across the regionboth in the evaluation

practices specied in the policy documents and in

the details o the policy prescriptions.

Tis study examines district evaluation policy

documents or evidence o 13 common teacher

evaluation practices (Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup,

Garland, Ellett, & Rugutt, 1996). In general district

policy documents were more apt to speciy the

processes involved in teacher evaluation (who con-ducts the evaluation, when, and how oen) than

they were to provide guidance or the content o

the evaluation, the standards by which the evalua-

tion would be conducted, or the use o the evalu-

ation results. District policies also varied in how

specic they were, though the tendency was to be

less, rather than more, specic or the 13 evalua-

tion practices examined. Fully two-thirds o the


10/37

2 examining diStrict guidance to SchoolS on teacher evaluation policieS in the midWeSt region

district teacher evaluation policy

documents provided guidance or

ewer than hal o the 13 practices.

No policies specied more than 10

evaluation practices, and nearly 16

percent o the districts evaluationpolicies reected none o these

practices. Te most commonly

reerenced practice was how oen evaluations are

to be conducted (67 percent), ollowed by what

evaluation tools are to be used (59 percent) and

what methods are to be used (49 percent).

Te study also nds that Midwestern districts

evaluate teachers primarily to help decide

whether to retain or release new teachers. School

principals and administrators do most o theevaluation and, at the districts direction, ocus

on beginning teachers. Beginning teachers are

typically evaluated two or more times a year,

while experienced teachers just once every two or

three years. Several other patterns emerge rom

the ndings:

Many district policies distinguish between

beginning and experienced teachers.

Few policies spell out consequences or unsat-

isactory evaluations.

Few districts reerence using resources or

guidance to support evaluations.

Most evaluations are summative reports used

to support decisions about retaining teachers

and granting tenure, rather than or proes-

sional development.

Few district policies speciy training or

evaluators.

Vague terminology leaves evaluation policies

open to interpretation.

Te specicity o policy and procedures varies

across districts.

Tese ndings lay the groundwork or additional

research, identiying several questions that need

urther investigation:

What is the role o state departments o edu-

cation in the teacher evaluation process?

How do policy variations aect teacher evalu-

ation at the local level?

What is the inuence o district policy in

evaluating beginning teachers, tenured teach-

ers, and unsatisactory teachers?

What is the impact o dierent evaluation

models and practices on teacher eectiveness?

ThE lITERaTuRE on EvaluaTIon polIcIEs

Only two studies have examined teacher evalu-

ation policies on a large scale (Ellett & Garland,

1987; Loup et al., 1996). Both used the eacher

Evaluation Practices Survey (EPS) (Ellett &

Garland, 1987) o superintendents to collect

inormation about teacher evaluation policies

and procedures in the nations 100 largest school

districts. Te EPS is divided into three sec-tions: teacher evaluation policies, purposes, and

practices. Te policy section asks how teachers

are inormed o the policy, who will be evaluated,

how oen, and what are the standards or accept-

able teaching. Te purpose section asks about the

primary purposes or conducting evaluations and

how districts use evaluation results, whether or

personnel decisions or proessional development.

Te practices section examines who conducts the

evaluation, what evaluation methods are used, and

what training is required or evaluators.

Ellett and Garlands survey (1987) o superinten-

dents and their analysis o district policy docu-

ments suggested that teacher evaluations were

most oen used or dismissal or remediation

rather than or proessional development, district

policies rarely established perormance standards

or evaluator training, ew districts permitted

external or peer evaluations, and superintendents

tended to present their district policies more avor-

ably than did independent reviewers.

A decade later Loup et al. (1996) conducted a ol-

low-up study, adapting Ellett and Garlands survey

to measure superintendents opinions about the

eectiveness o their teacher evaluation systems.

Te results mirrored those o Ellett and Garland

teacher evaluation policies in large districts had

changed litt le in 10 years. But superintendents

e t f tt

Miweter itrit

te teer

rimri t e eie

weter t reti r

eee ew teer


11/37

the literature on evaluation policieS 3

were no longer satised with the status quo, and

many reported a need to revise their existing

evaluation tools and procedures.

Te ollowing sections use the EPS ramework

to review other relevant research and proessionalguidance on teacher evaluation.

Evaluation policies and purposes

According to Loup et a l. (1996), most policies

give supervisors and assistant superintendents

the district-level responsibility or evaluating

teachers. Principals and assistant principals are

most oen responsible at the building level. Te

conicting roles o principals who must serve both

as instructional leaders and as evaluators are thebiggest problem with teacher evaluation accord-

ing to Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin,

and Bernstein (1984). Many principals, wanting to

maintain collegial relations with sta members,

are reluctant to criticize them. It is not surprising,

then, that Johnson (1990) reports that many teach-

ers believe that administrators are not competent

evaluators. Several studies depict principals as

inaccurate raters both o individual teacher per-

ormance behaviors and o overall teacher merit

(Peterson, 1995, p.15). According to Dwyer andStuebeam (1996), principals usually rate all their

teachers as perorming at acceptable levelsa

welcome, but unlikely, result.

How oen teachers are evaluated usually depends

on their years o experience. Sweeney and Manatt

(1986) report that most districts observe nonten-

ured teachers more requently than tenured teach-

ers. Guidance on teacher evaluation, however, rec-

ommends supervising beginning teachers rather

than evaluating them (Nolan & Hoover, 2005).

Te requency o evaluation may also be related to

what assessment tool a district uses. Some districts

may require observations more requently than

portolio assessments. Others may use alternative

tools, such as the interview protocol and scoring

rubric developed by Flowers and Hancock (2003).

Tis tool is designed to accurately and quickly

assess a teachers ability to assess and modiy

instruction to improve student achievement.

Researchers have encouraged districts to modiy

their practices in ways that increase the likelihood

o evaluation inorming teachers improvementeorts, but there has not been strong evidence that

this advice has had its intended eect. Researchers

and teachers alike oen assume that the intended

eect is to inorm proessional development and

recertication (Clark, 1993).

But although districts

with perormance-based

compensation programs

use evaluations to

determine salary in-creases (Schacter, Tum,

Reisneider, & Schi,

2004), ew use them to

improve teacher prac-

tices. Researchers have

suggested that successul evaluation depends on

clear communication between administrators and

teachers (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983;

Stronge, 1997). o acil itate this, researchers have

advocated involving teachers in the design and

implementation o the evaluation process (Kyriak-ides, Demetriou, & Charalambous, 2006). But case

studies show that policies and procedures are not

regularly communicated to teachers; teachers are

thus more likely to see the evaluation as a sum-

mative report generated to meet district or state

requirements (Zepeda, 2002) than as an opportu-

nity to gauge and improve their teaching capacity.

Evaluation practices

Stronge (2002) holds that measures o teacherplanningsuch as unit and lesson plans, student

work samples, and analyses o student workare

related to student success and should be evalu-

ated. Quality lesson plans should link learning

objectives with activities, keep students atten-

tion, align objectives with the district and state

standards, and accommodate students with

special needs (Stronge, 2002). And or the lesson

at itrit wi

errme-e

meti rr

e eti t

etermie r

iree, ew e

tem t imre

teer rtie


12/37


to be eectively delivered, teachers must be able

to manage the classroom. One suggested way to

manage the classroom learning environment is

to establish routines that support quality interac-

tions between teachers and students and between

students and their peers (Ellett & Garland, 1987;Loup et al., 1996).

eachers oen have more than one role, which

can require technological, administrative, and

social skills in addition to those needed or routine

teaching roles (Rosenblatt, 2001, p. 685). Some

districts may thus also evaluate teacher contribu-

tions to committees, commitment to proessional

development, and communication with col-

leagues and parents (Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup

et al., 1996).

Studies nd that districts use a variety o meth-

ods to evaluate teachers: observations (Mujis,

2006), teacher work samples (Schalock, 1998),

interview protocols (Flowers & Hancock, 2003),

and portolio assessments (Gellman, 1992) are

just a ew. Te portolio assessment has garnered

particular attention rom administrators, teach-

ers, and researchers. eachers and administrators

nd portolios useul tools or helping teachers

sel-reect, identiy strengths and weaknesses,and grow proessionally (ucker, Stronge, & Ga-

reis, 2002). Researchers are concerned, however,

whether portolios accurately reect what occurs

in classrooms (ucker et al., 2002).

Whether the evaluation method should depend

on a teachers years o experience is debated.

Some researchers advocate using one evaluation

system or all teachers (Danielson & McGreal,

2000; McLaughlin & Peer, 1988; Stronge, 1997),

while others argue that using dierent evaluationsystems or beginning and experienced teach-

ers is more valuable (Millman & Schalock, 1997;

Stiggans & Duke, 1988; Beerens,

2000; Danielson & McGreal,

2000). Peterson (2000), or ex-

ample, argues that new teacher

evaluations should provide

opportunities or proessional

development in areas the teachers preparation

program did not address.

Several case studies suggest that evaluators need

to be trained to properly assess teacher behaviors

and characteristics (Wise et al., 1984; Stiggans &Duke, 1988). Large-scale studies on teacher evalu-

ation policies have, however, ound little evidence

o comprehensive evaluation training programs

(Loup et al., 1996).

addREssIng quEsTIons lET

unansWEREd by ThE lITERaTuRE

As the literature review makes evident, research

on teacher evaluation policies is usually descrip-tive and oen outdated. Proessional guidance

may be more abundant, but rarely reerences its

research base. Many questions about district poli-

cies are le unanswered. For example,

What does the landscape o teacher evaluation

policy look like today?

What can be learned about the policy process

by examining district documents?

Tis study begins to answer these questionsand to identiy where uture research may be

warrantedby looking at Midwest Region district

policies on teacher evaluation. Te ndings will

deepen the elds understanding o evaluation

policies and inorm administrators conversations

about the state o current policies.

Te study selected a sample o 216 districts demo-

graphically representative o districts across the

Midwest Region; 140 participated in the study and

provided researchers with their teacher evalu-ation policies and procedures. Te policies and

procedures were coded according to 13 research

questions adapted rom the eacher Evaluation

Practices Survey (Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup

et al., 1996). (Box 1 summarizes the data sources

and methodology, appendix A urther discusses

sample selection, and appendix B provides de-

tailed ndings.)

Reer teer

ti iie

eritie

te tte


13/37

teacher evaluation policy in the midWeSt region 5

TEachER EvaluaTIon polIcy

In ThE MIdWEsT REgIon

District policy or evaluating teachers varies

widely across the regionboth in the evaluation

practices specied in the policy documents and

in the details o the policy prescriptions. Still,

patterns in the data reect some commonalities

across the region. Te 13 evaluation practices

were grouped into three categories: evaluation

standards and criteria, evaluation processes, and

evaluation results (table 1). It is clear that district

policy documents requently reerenced evalua-

tion processes (such as who conducts the evalua-tion, when, and how oen). O the 13 evaluation

practices examined, the three most commonly

reerenced all pertained to process: how oen

evaluations are to be conducted (67 percent),

which tools (checklist, rating scale) are to be used

(59 percent), and what methods (observation,

portolio, proessional development plans) are to

be used (49 percent).

Box 1

Data and methodology

Tis study used a stratied sample

design to select school districts that

are demographically representativeo the majority o districts across the

Midwest Region. A data le contain-

ing 3,126 public school districts in

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,

Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin was

generated using the National Center

or Education Statistics Common

Core o Data (U.S. Department o

Education, 2004/05).

Sample districts were selected ac-cording to locale (urban, suburban,

rural), the percentage o students

in the district eligible or ree or

reduced-price lunch (less than or

more than 40 percent o eligible stu-

dents), and the percentage o minor-

ity student enrollment in the district

(less than or more than 40 percent

non-Caucasian minority students).1

In all, 216 districts were selected.

Methodology

Sample districts were asked to provide

their teacher evaluation policies and

procedures. Tese data were rst

coded according 13 research questions

adapted rom the eacher Evaluation

Practices Survey (EPS) (Ellett & Gar-

land, 1987; Loup et al., 1996) and then

according to the common and unique

policies and procedures reported by

each district. Summary reports werecreated or each research question,

using counts o codes and representa-

tive quotations rom the documents to

clariy the ndings and identiy areas

or urther inquiry.

Te data were analyzed using SPSS

Complex Samples add-on module,

which calculates common statistics,

such as the standard errors reported

in this paper, based on the param-

eters o the plan used to select the

representative sample. Because di-

erent groups had dierent sampling

probabilities in the sample selection

process, these weights were also

incorporated into the data analysis by

the Complex Samples add-on.

Research questions

Evaluation standards and criteria

What specic criteria are to be

evaluated?

What external resources were

used to inorm evaluations?*

What training is required o

evaluators?

Do evaluation policies dier

by content area and/or special

populations?*

Evaluation processes

How oen are evaluations to be

conducted?

What evaluation tools are to be

used?

What methods o evaluation are

suggested or required?

Who has responsibility or con-

ducting the teacher evaluation?

When are evaluations conducted?*

How is the teacher evaluation

policy to be communicated to

teachers?

What ormal grievance pro-

cedures are to be in place or

teachers?

Evaluation results

How are teacher evaluation

results to be used?


results to be reported?

NotesTese questions were added to the EPS*

categories to capture additional details

about evaluation requirements.

District size was initially included in1.

the selection strata, but was dropped

because size was strongly and positively

correlated with district locale.


14/37


Practices pertaining to the standards and criteria

that inorm the evaluations are less requently

reerenced. Fewer than two in ve districts (39

percent) provided details in their evaluation

policy about the actual criteria used to rate teacher

practice. One in ve districts (21 percent) indi-cated that they used external resources, such as

evaluation models or standards rameworks, in

the design o their system. Only 8 percent o all

district policies reerenced any orm o training or

certication criteria or raters, and a mere 5 per-

cent o all districts recommended dierent policies

based on dierences in subject area or student

population.

Between these extremesthe more requent

reerence to evaluation processes and the less

requent reerence to evaluation standards and

taBle 1

Percentage of districts specifying evaluation practices within teacher evaluation policy documents

t s

t

=140

l

r

=61

Sbb

=67

ub

=12


W s b ?

39

(6.1)

33

(8.4)

37

(9.3)

45

(21.2)

W ss w s s?

21

(3.1)

21

(4.3)

18

(4.5)

23

(12.6)

W s q s?

8

(2.1)

10

(2.7)

6

(3.5)

6

(6.6)

d s f b / s s?

5

(4.2)

0*

(0)

8

(3.9)

41

(24.6)


hw s b ?

67

(4.3)

68

(5.6)

61

(6.5)

78

(12.1)

W s b s?59

(4.5)60

(7.1)54

(5.4)81

(13.3)

W s ss q?

49

(5.5)

50

(8.2)

42

(7.6)

74

(10.4)

W s ssb ?

41

(5.6)

40

(10.6)

37

(4.8)

68

(14.6)

W s ?

36

(5.1)

28*

(6.6)

38

(7.3)

75

(15.4)

hw s b s?

32

(5.7)

31

(8.5)

27

(8.1)

39

(19.9)

W s b s?

31

(4.4)

34

(7.4)

22

(4.3)

39

(17.8)

Evaluation results

hw ss b s?

48

(6.6)

52

(8.4)

39

(10.7)

43

(22.2)

hw ss b ?

31

(6.9)

27

(11.4)

31

(10.3)

30

(14)

* indicates a dierence between rural and urban or between suburban and urban that was statistically signifcant using a two-tailed test at 95 percent.

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Independent samples chi-square tests were perormed to determine whether urban districts were more

likely than rural or suburban districts to address any one o the 13 evaluation practices.

Source: Authors analysis based on data described in box 1 and appendix A.


15/37

common patternS in teacher evaluation policieS in the midWeSt region 7

criteriawas a modest mention o how to use

evaluation results. Nearly hal the district poli-

cies detailed how the evaluation results were to be

used (48 percent), although ewer than one-third

specied how these results were to be reported to

teachers (31 percent).

Te extent to which the 13 evaluation practices

were addressed in district policy varied. wo-

thirds o district policies provided guidance or

ewer than hal o the 13 practices. No district

policies specied more than 10 evaluation prac-

tices, and nearly 16 percent o them reected none

o these practices.

Independent sample chi-square tests were per-

ormed to determine whether urban districtswere more likely than rural or suburban districts

to address any one o the 13 evaluation practices.

Compared with rural districts, urban district

policies were signicantly more likely to dierenti-

ate evaluation practice or special population or

content area teachers (z= 3.211,p < .05, two-

tailed) and to speciy when the evaluations should

be conducted (z= 2.44,p < .05, two-tailed). No

statistically signicant dierences were ound

between the urban and suburban districts.

coMMon paTTERns In TEachER EvaluaTIon

polIcIEs In ThE MIdWEsT REgIon

Te collected district policies present a some-

what uneven picture o teacher evaluation in the

sampled Midwest Region districts, but they con-

tain many interesting leads or urther research.

Te ndings in this section pertain only to the

sample and not to the region as a whole, however,

because they are based on small numbers o dis-tricts that reerenced a given practice within their

policy documents. Districts in the sample view

teacher evaluation mainly as a tool or making

decisions about retaining or releasing new teach-

ers. School principals and administrators do most

o the evaluations and, at the districts direction,

ocus on beginning teachers. Beginning teachers

are typically evaluated at least two times a year;

experienced teachers are

usually evaluated once

every two or three years.

Several other patterns

emerge and are explored

in the ollowing sections.

Many district policies distinguish

between beginning and

experienced teachers

Districts that articulated when and how oen

teacher evaluations should be conducted re-

quently distinguished between teachers with

varying experience. O the 94 districts that

included policy or procedural statements to guide

the requency o evaluations, 88 percent (standarderror = 3.2 percent) specied how oen beginning

teachers should be evaluated. Specically, 63 per-

cent (standard error = 5.9 percent) o districts

required beginning teachers be evaluated at least

two to three times a year, usually by a combination

o inormal observations, ormative evaluations,

and ormal summative evaluations.

Fewer than hal the policies detail

how results are to be used

Fewer than hal the districts spelled out how

the teacher evaluation results would be used (48

percent, standard error = 6.6 percent) or outlined

procedures or ling ofcial grievances (31 per-

cent, standard error = 4.4 percent). When details

were provided, policy documents typically noted

that evaluations would be used to make decisions

about retaining probationary sta or dismissing

nonprobationary sta.

Few districts reerenced using resources

or guidance to support evaluations

Only 29 o 140 districts (21 percent, standard

error = 3.1 percent) provided documentation about

the resources and guidance they used to inorm

the teacher evaluation process. While this seems

a surprisingly low number, participating districts

may leave it up to administrators and supervisors

Te ete itrit

iie reet

mewt ee

itre teer

eti i te

me Miwet

Rei itrit, t

ti m itere

e r rter ree


16/37


to nd and use supporting resources. Districts

may also provide administrators with resources

and guidance that are not mentioned in the pro-

cedures submitted to the researchers. A ollow-up

study could urther investigatethrough inter-

views or surveys o district and union personnelwhat resources and guidance are most widely

used. Research is also needed to determine how

dierent models o teacher evaluation aect

teacher eectiveness and student achievement.

Most evaluations are used or summative reports

rather than or proessional development

O the 43 districts whose policies specied how

evaluation results should be reported, 34 (79

percent, standard error = 6.2 percent) speciedthat results should be reported in summative orm.

Milanowskis (2005) quasi-experimental study

suggests that the type o evaluation (ormative or

summative) is less important to proessional devel-

opment than the quality o developmental support,

the credibility and accessibility o a mentor, and

the personal compatibility o the evaluator with the

person being evaluatedespecially or beginning

teachers. Only 45 percent (standard error = 6.4

percent) o districts whose policies provided or

how evaluation results would be used, however,stated that the results would inorm proessional

development, intensive assistance, or remediation

or teachers receiving unsatisactory evaluations.

Few district policies require evaluators to be trained

Only 8 percent (standard error = 2.1 percent)

o district policies included inormation about

required training or evaluators. wo percent

(standard error = 1.6 percent) specied only that

evaluators must have obtained ap-propriate certication or licensure

to supervise instruction. Te

remaining 6 percent (standard

error = 2 percent) specied that,

in addition to administrative

certication, evaluators must par-

ticipate in state-sponsored or other

training to evaluate teachers. More

research is needed to examine the link between

eective training and evaluation. A systematic

descriptive study examining the components

o current evaluator training requirements may

inorm uture experimental research.

Vague terminology leaves evaluation

policies open to interpretation

Te denition o evaluation varied across districts.

Even when districts used more targeted terms

ormative evaluation, summative evaluation, and

ormal and inormal evaluation, to name a ewit

was oen difcult to understand rom the docu-

ments what the districts actually intended. Te

term observation urther complicates under-

standing the evaluation process. Some districtsdescribed pre-observation and post-observation

conerences. Others simply mentioned that

observations were to take place, without describ-

ing what those observations might include. A ew

provided a detailed observation and evaluation

process that le no question about how the process

was to be conducted. Ellett and Garland (1987)

and Loup et al. (1996) did not report this problem

o varied denitions because their primary data

source was a survey. But looking at the policies

revealed an interesting pattern o vague terminol-ogy. Further study about using precise language in

evaluation policies could be useul. For instance,

do certain types o districts intentionally use

vague language intended or broad interpretation?

When, and under what conditions?

Further research is also needed to determine the

extent to which districts and schools provide other

opportunities or evaluation that are not ormally

stated in policy but that are expected or encour-

aged. Examples might include peer reviews, criti-cal riends, action research, and sel-evaluation.

A standard survey with a ull round o ollow-up

promptings could enable a comparison o what is

contained in districts written policy and proce-

dures and what actually occurs in the district. A

survey o principals and teachers could provide a

better understanding o how eectively the or-

mally stated district policies are implemented.

rter reer i

eee t etermie

e etet t wi

itrit rie ter

rtitie r

ti tt re t

rm tte i i


17/37

appendix a 9

appEndIx a

METhodology

Sampling procedure

Tis study used a stratied sample design to selectschool districts that demographically represented

the majority o districts across the Midwest

Region. A data le containing 3,126 public school

districts in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Min-

nesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin was generated using

the National Center or Education Statistics Com-

mon Core o Data. Te SPSS Complex Samples

add-on module was used to create the sample and

to account or the sample design specications.

Districts were stratied and selected to represent

the total number o districts in the region.

wo hundred sixteen sample districts were se-

lected according to locale (urban, suburban, rural),

percentage o students in the district eligible or

ree or reduced-price lunch (less than or more

than 40 percent o eligible students), and percent-

age o minority student enrollment in the district

(less than or more than 40 percent non-Caucasian

minority students). District size was initially

included in the selection strata, but it was dropped

because it was strongly and positively correlated

with district locale.

Schools with more than 40 percent o students eligi-

ble or ree or reduced-price lunch qualiy as school-

wide program schools, which have more exibilityin the use o itle I unds and the delivery o services.

For example, sta members must work together to

develop curriculum and instruction and are ree to

work with all students in the building. Midwest state

education sta indicated that the exibility oered to

schools through the school-wide program can inu-

ence local policy decisions, including those related to

teacher evaluation. Te 40 percent point or minority

enrollment was set aer conversations with regional

educators who elt that 40 percent represents a critical

mass that begins to signicantly aect a districtspolicies and procedures.

Te samples demographic characteristics and re-

sponse rates are provided in table A1. See appendix

C or tables comparing the total number o districts

within each stratumboth across the region and

within each statewith the sample districts.

O the recruited districts, 76 did not participate.

Further ollow-up with these districts would be

taBle a1

Sample demographic characteristics and response rate

ds ss dss dss rss ()

Locale

r 104 61 59

Sbb 99 67 68

ub 13 12 92

t 216

Free or reduced-price lunch

m 40 ss b 51 33 65

lss 40 ss b 165 107 65

t 216

Minority enrollment

m 40 -cs 14 12 86

lss 40 -cs 202 128 63

t 216 140 65

Source: Authors analysis based on data described in this appendix.


18/37


useul to determine whether nonrespondents

are less likely to have ormalized teacher evalu-

ation policies and practices and thus less likely

to respond because they did not understand the

importance o the study to their situations.

Data collection

Te Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory,

with the support o the regions state education

agencies, sent letters to the 216 district superin-

tendents to inorm them o the studys goals and

invite them to participate. o reduce the burden

on districts, the study authors downloaded teacher

evaluation policies rom the district web sites

when possible. I the policies were unavailable, the

National Opinion Research Center (NORC) used avariation o the ailored Design Method (Dillman,

2000) to collect the datarst contacting school

districts with an advance letter, ollowed by a

reminder post card and a second reminder letter.

NORC used FedEx or the second mailing because

many district ofcials reported not receiving the

documents through U.S. Postal Service standard

mail. Te letters described the study goals, listed

the research questions, and requested district

policy and procedural documentation or teacherevaluations (see box A1 or the list o research

questions). Te respondents were inormed that

electronic versions were preerred to acilitate

analyzing the data with the NVivo soware. I

districts were unable or unwilling to provide

electronic documents, FedEx post-paid envelopes

were provided or mailing hard copies o the policydocuments. NORC sta prompted districts that

did not provide documentation within two weeks

o the rst mailing, in many cases making mul-

tiple calls. Te prompters also e-mailed and axed

documentation to districts. Te response rate or

each o the Midwest Region states is tabulated in

table A2.

Box a1

Research questions

Te research questions were adapted

rom the eacher Evaluation Prac-

tices Survey (EPS) (Ellett & Gar-

land, 1987; Loup et al., 1996).


What specic criteria are to be

evaluated?

What external resources were

used to inorm the evaluation?*

What training is required o

evaluators?

Do evaluation policies dier

by content area and/or special

populations?*


How oen are evaluations to be

conducted?

What evaluation tools are to be

used?

What methods o evaluation are

suggested or required?

Who has responsibility or con-

ducting the teacher evaluation?

When are evaluations

conducted?*

How is the teacher evaluation

policy to be communicated to

teachers?

What ormal grievance procedures

are to be in place or teachers?

Evaluation results


results to be used?


results to be reported?

Note

Tese questions were added to the EPS*

categories to capture additional details

about evaluation requirements.

taBle a2

Sample district participation rates by state

S

dss

dss

rss

()

iw 31 24 77

is 58 30 52

i 20 16 80

m 38 26 68

ms 23 13 57

o 16 13 81

Wss 30 18 60

t 216 140 65

Source: Authors analysis based on data described in this appendix.


19/37

appendix a 11

collected, this study is mainly descriptive and has

several limitations.

Policy and procedural documents may not tell the

whole story. All the district documents may not

have been provided. Tus the study may not be anexhaustive prole o the teacher evaluation process

in all the districts. And policy documents may not

always reect actual evaluation practices and pro-

cesses. One district policy document stated that a

teachers work will be evaluated at least once every

two years, and a written report shall be made on

each teacher by the principal, curriculum coordi-

nator, or supervisor. An administrator rom this

district specied, however, that new teachers are

evaluated (two) times/year, while teachers who

have two years o experience are evaluated onceevery two years. Several districts also reerenced

ormal documents that were not provided.

Only district-level policies and procedures were ex-

amined. Individual schools may have substantial

autonomy in their evaluation policy and practice

and may have ormal documentation developed

independent rom the district central ofce.

School-level policies were not included in this

study, however. Tis study also did not look at how

closely schools adhere to the district evaluationpolicies and procedures.

Sample sizes in some demographic categories are

small. District responses are broken down by

locale (urban, rural, and suburban). In some cases,

the samples or these demographic categories are

small and should thus be interpreted with caution.

Reported categorical dierences may not always

reect the region as a whole.

eacher contracts were rarely included in theanalyses.eacher contracts likely contain inorma-

tion about teacher evaluations, but the Midwest

Regional Educational Laboratory received very ew

teacher contracts rom participating districts. Tis

missing data source makes it likely that the poli-

cies used to address the research questions do not

ully represent policies in the Midwest Region.

Eight districts explicitly declined to participate

(three Illinois districts, two Michigan districts,

one Minnesota district, and two Wisconsin

districts). Five o the eight did not give a reason.

wo indicated that they were understaed, and

one that it did not have a teacher evaluation policyor documentation available. Sixty-ve districts

simply did not respond to the recruitment letter.

Data analysis

Districts submitted ormal and inormal policy

documents. Formal documents included ofcial

district documents, such as contracts, employee

handbooks, district and school web sites, and

district evaluation orms. Inormal documents in-

cluded any documents created or this study, suchas e-mailed and handwritten responses to analysis

questions. Te inormal and ormal documents

were coded or this study. wenty-ve districts

provided both ormal and inormal documents

and nine provided only inormal documents.

Te data were rst coded by research question

and then by the common and unique policies and

procedures reported by each district. Te codes

were then grouped according to common themes.

Summary reports were created or each researchquestion, using counts o codes and representative

quotations rom the documents to clariy the nd-

ings and identiy areas or urther inquiry.

Te data were analyzed using SPSS Complex Sam-

ples add-on module, which calculates common

statistics, such as the standard errors reported in

this paper, based on the parameters o the plan

used to select the representative sample. Because

dierent groups had dierent sampling probabili-

ties in the sample selection process, these weightswere also incorporated into the data analysis by

the Complex Samples add-on.

Limitations

Given the lack o inormation about teacher evalu-

ations and the nature o the policy documents


20/37

12 examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the midwest region

Appendix B

Study findingS By reSeArch queStion

Tis summary o ndings includes the percent o

districts with policy documents addressing the 13

research questions and identies patterns in thepolicy prescriptions. Standard errors are included

or population estimates o districts with policy

addressing each research question. Te standard

errors represent the variability o the estimates.

Te larger the reported standard error, the less

precise the estimate. For estimates disaggregated

by locale, see table 1 in the main body o the report.

Te disaggregated results by minority and ree or

reduced-price lunch are not discussed because di-

erences between the groups showed little variance.

Te patterns o detail described in the policy

descriptions within each research question should

be interpreted with caution. Te comparisons are

based on small numbers o districts that reer-

enced a given practice within their policy docu-

ments. Tese ndings pertain only to the sample

and not to the region as a whole.

1. What specifc criteria are to be evaluated?

Fiy-our (39 percent, standard error = 6.1 per-cent) districts identied the specic evaluation

criteria. Forty-nine reported that more than one

criterion should be used to evaluate teachers, 25

identied ve to six criteria, and 24 ewer than

our. Te ollowing sections group the district

criteria into ve categories used or coding.

Knowledge and instruction. Te category knowl-

edge and instruction reers to teacher content and

pedagogical knowledge. I a district reported that a

teachers content knowledge or pedagogical strategiesshould be evaluated, then the district was counted

under the knowledge and instruction column. One

rural district measured teachers knowledge and

pedagogical practices by observing and critiquing

teacher strategies to deliver instruction that meets

the multiple learning needs o students. O the 54

districts that detailed evaluation criteria, 81 percent

included knowledge and instruction as a criterion.

Monitoring. Monitoring reers to teachers

monitoring o student learning, assessing student

perormance, and refecting on their own teach-

ing perormance. Hal the districts with policies

detailing the areas o evaluation included moni-

toring. wenty-two districts dictated that theteacher evaluations should look at whether teachers

examine their students perormance through

measures such as assessment data. Nine districts

required that teachers be evaluated on two or more

o the monitoring subcomponents. Six districts

required evaluations to determine how teachers use

sel-refection to respond to student needs. Eight

districts required teachers to provide demonstrated

knowledge o their students background and skil ls.

Professional responsibilities. Forty-three o the54 districts (80 percent) use the proessional

responsibilities criterion, which evaluates teach-

ers proessional development, ulllment o

responsibilities, and communication with col-

leagues, students, and amilies as part o their

evaluation. Eighteen districts required evaluations

to contain inormation on teacher communication

and eedback, and 15 district policies stated that

teachers should be evaluated on how they ulll

their proessional responsibilities (involvement in

school and district activities, adherence to schooland district policies, cultivation o proessional

and student relationships). Seven districts required

teachers to be evaluated on their general proes-

sional development.

Classroom management. Te classroom manage-

ment criterion reers to a teachers ability to en-

gage students and to maintain a positive learning

environment. Forty-seven districts (87 percent)

included classroom management as part o their

evaluation, 27 required a general ocus on class-room management, and 25 required an evaluation

o teachers abilities to maintain positive learning

environments (an atmosphere o respect and risk

taking). Nine district documents dictated that stu-

dent engagement should be part o the evaluation.

Planning and preparation. Te planning and

preparation criterion reers to teacher use o


21/37

appendix B 13

goals, lesson plans, and school resources to

enhance instruction. Tirty-six district policies

ocused on teachers planning and preparation.

wenty districts used the phrase planning and

preparation as a key component in evaluation,

and 10 districts required that teachers be evalu-ated on use o school resourcessuch as technol-

ogy or computersto enhance student learning.

Eight districts required an evaluation o teachers

lesson plans, and ve required teachers to be

evaluated on how they include instruction and stu-

dent achievement goals. Seven districts required

that teachers be evaluated in two or more areas

related to planning and preparation.

Other criteria. Te evaluation requirements o two

districts did not t in the evaluation categoriesand were coded as other. One district stated that

evaluation criteria are established by the board

o education and are subject to change, while the

other evaluated teachers according to a break-

down o the standards to which each teacher is

held and on which each teacher is evaluated.

2. What external resources were

used to inorm evaluations?

Only 29 districts (21 percent; standard error = 3.1percent) identied resourcessuch as evaluation

models and standards rameworks that inormed

their evaluation policies and procedures.

Specic evaluation models and guidance used to

guide teacher evaluation practice. O the 29 districts

that provided documentation about guidance and

resources used, 10 (34 percent) reerenced the use

o Danielsons Framework or teacher evaluation,

while 4 (14 percent) noted the National Board or

Proessional eaching Standards ve core proposi-tions o accomplished teaching, Schlectys (1998)

Standard Bearer Quality Work Framework, the

Mayerson Academys Essential Principles o High

Perorming Learning and Leading, or Manatts

eacher Perormance Evaluation (1988).

State standards used to guide teacher evaluation

practice. A similar number o district policies

identied state standards as inorming teacher

evaluationtwo used the Illinois eaching Stan-

dards and seven the Iowa eaching Standards.

Other models. Five o the 29 district policies (17

percent) stated evaluators were provided withspecic evaluation resources but did not identiy

the resources.

3. What training is required o evaluators?

Only 11 districts (8 percent, standard error = 2.1

percent) had written documentation detailing any

orm o training requirements or evaluators. In

several cases, districts did not provide any details

about the trainingother than that it was about

teacher evaluationor about the length o thetraining. A ew districts stated that trainings were

one or two days long. Documentation in one dis-

trict suggested that new administrators be paired

with experienced administrators in the district.

Tis program appeared to be a mentoring program

or new administrators, although ollow-up is

needed to conrm this. Te ollowing sections de-

scribe the training categories identied in district

policies and procedural documents.

State certication and licensure requirements. Fivedistricts indicated that evaluators must obtain

state school administration certication and li-

censure (such as ype 75 administrators certica-

tion). Tese districts may thus not include peer or

community member evaluations as a ormal part

o the evaluation process. wo districts required

administrators to obtain additional certication in

teacher evaluation.

State-sponsored training. Tree districts required

evaluators to be trained by the state department oeducation or an afliated state-sponsored organi-

zation. Tis ormal training generally occurred in

the evaluators rst year in the position.

Other training provided. Four districts required

other types o training. In one district rst-year

administrators were required to participate

in a mentoring program with an experienced


22/37


administrator in the district. wo districts reerred

to national training in their documentation, but

did not speciy who provided this training or how

long it lasted. Te ourth district indicated that

its administrators attend a two-day workshop on

eective teacher evaluation, which was providedby an external education consultant. One o the

previous our district policies stated that the state

required administrators in certain districts to take

state-level training. Further investigation is neces-

sary to determine whether states actually require

administrator training or teacher evaluation.

4. Do evaluation policies dier by content

area and/or special populations?

District evaluation procedures were examined todetermine whether they varied by content area

(mathematics, language arts) or special popula-

tions (special education, English language learn-

ers). Seven o 140 participating districts (5 percent,

standard error = 4.2 percent) reported having

evaluation policies or procedures that dier by

content area or special population.

Evaluation procedures or special education teach-

ers. O the seven districts, six had evaluation pro-

cedures or teachers who work with students withspecial needs (gied students, special needs). In

some cases, evaluators o special education teachers

were required to use a rubric that varied slightly

rom that used or regular education teachers. One

district explicitly held special education teachers

to a dierent standard: eachers who are given

unusual responsibilities or difcult situations in

which to teach . . . will not be expected to meet the

same perormance standards as other teachers.

Evaluation instrument or nonclassroom teachers.One suburban district developed a specic tool or

a summative evaluation o nonclassroom teachers.

5. How oten are evaluations to be conducted?

Ninety-our o the participating districts (67 per-

cent, standard error = 4.3 percent) specied how

oen evaluations should occur. Eighty-three

districts urther specied the requency or begin-

ning or probationary teachers (59 percent), 81

or experienced or tenured teachers (58 percent),

and 7 or unsatisactory teachers (5 percent).

O the 83 districts with policies directing therequency o evaluation or beginning teachers, 59

specied that beginning teachers must be evalu-

ated at least two or three times a year. Fourteen

required at least one evaluation a year or begin-

ning teachers, while the remaining 10 included

other evaluation instructions.

O the 81 districts with policy addressing the

requency o evaluation or experienced teachers,

42 required that experienced or tenured teach-

ers be observed once every three years. wenty-two required at least one evaluation a year or

experienced teachers, while six districts required

more than one a year. Tree districts required an

evaluation only once every our or ve years. One

district policy indicated that a ormal evaluation

be conducted every three years or tenured teach-

ers, with several inormal evaluations occurring

between cycles.

Surprisingly, district policies rarely specied

procedures or unsatisactory teachers. Only seveno the 140 districts participating in the study (5

percent) contained statements about unsatisactory

teachers. Five required that unsatisactory teach-

ers be evaluated several times a year. One district

did not indicate a specic number o evaluations,

but required that an intensive improvement plan

be implemented: I the summative evaluation is

below district standards, the evaluator shall set

orth in writing steps that shall be taken to improve

the perormance to meet the district standards.

6. What evaluation tools are to be used?

Policies were analyzed to determine what evalua-

tion tools districts use in the evaluation process.

O the 140 participating districts, 83 (59 percent,

standard error = 4.5 percent) specied tools or

schools to use in evaluating teachers. Most tools

were used or summative evaluations and included


23/37

appendix B 15

quantitative rating scales to assess teacher peror-

mance. In some cases, these quantitative orms in-

cluded a limited number o open-ended questions,

allowing the rater to support his or her ratings with

descriptive inormation. A ew districts also used

classroom observation tools that allowed evalu-ators to describe the classroom and teacher and

student behaviors. In a ew cases policies coupled

evaluation tools with teacher sel-assessment tools.

Examples o typical summative and ormative tools

are provided in appendixes D and E.

7. What methods o evaluation are suggested or required?


standard error = 5.5 percent) reported that their

written policy either suggested or required specicevaluation methods. Te three methods speci-

cally noted were classroom observations, portolio

assessment, and proessional development plans.

Classroom observations. O the 68 districts, 41 (60

percent) suggested or required ormal observations,

including scheduled observations. Te denition

o ormal observation was not always clear in

district documentation, but the language suggested

that it oen included a pre-conerence, ormal

observation, and post-conerence. eachers wereaware ahead o time that they would be observed.

An evaluation instrument was oen used to docu-

ment eedback, which was later shared with the

teacher and placed in a permanent le. wenty-our

o these 41 districts (35 percent o the total 68 dis-

tricts), in addition to requiring ormal observations,

also suggested or required inormal observations,

including unscheduled or unannounced observa-

tions. Districts requiring ormal observations also

suggested the use o inormal observation. Inormal

observations were oen reerred to as classroomwalkthroughs or visitations. Furthermore, 21

o the 68 districts (31 percent) articulated specic

evaluation methods or new, nontenured, and pro-

bationary teachers, and 10 (15 percent) had distinct

evaluation methods or tenured teachers.

Portolio, proessional development and growth

plans, and other evaluation methods. O the 68

districts, 13 (19 percent) required portolios, 5

(7 percent) required individual proessional develop-

ment or growth plans, and 5 (7 percent) suggested

or required other evaluation methods such as

daily contact, or weekly lesson plans reviewed by

principal at least six times a year. Most proessionaldevelopment or growth plans were designed to im-

prove the quality o instruction through a process o

goal setting and collegial sharing. Such plans typi-

cally included requirements to align the proessional

development plan with district and school goals.

8. Who has responsibility or conducting

the teacher evaluation?

O the 140 districts that provided policy and pro-

cedural documentation, 57 (41 percent, standarderror = 5.6 percent) identied who is responsible

or conducting teacher evaluation. Forty-our

identied building administratorsprincipals,

vice principals, or content specialistsas respon-

sible. Seven districts (5 percent) had policies that

directed district administrators and supervisors

to conduct teacher evaluations. wo suburban dis-

tricts had rather unique strategies o peer evalu-

ations under certain circumstances. One allowed

or co-teaching as an evaluation method aer

the teacher completed the rst year with a satis-actory rating. Te other required all nontenured

teachers to be evaluated at least once a semester by

a director, but peers could also provide eedback

on lesson plans, exams, and instruction.

9. When are evaluations conducted?

Te timely provision o constructive eedback

is one o the important aspects o evaluation,

especially or new teachers who may nd the rst

year or two o teaching tremendously challenging.Fiy-one districts (36 percent, standard error = 5.1

percent) included language about when to conduct

evaluations or beginning (or probationary) and

or career (tenured) teachers.

District documentation specied the timing o

evaluations or beginning teachers more oen than

or teachers with more experience. wenty out o


24/37


the 51 district policies mentioned above contained

language concerning new teachers (probationary,

nonpermanent). Many rural and urban school dis-

trict policies specied when beginning teachers are

to be evaluatedusually in the all. Te remaining

31 district policies did not have dierent policiesor teachers with dierent levels o experience, but

included general language such as teacher evalua-

tions will take place throughout the school year.

10. How is the teacher evaluation policy

to be communicated to teachers?

O 140 districts, 45 (32 percent, standard error = 5.7

percent) communicated evaluation policy to teach-

ers: 24 percent through teacher contracts,1 36 percent

through the teacher handbooks, 36 percent throughgroup orientation, and 33 percent through one-on-

one communication with the supervisor. Most o the

45 districts included more than one o these methods

in their policy. Te act that only one-third o partici-

pating districts included inormation speciying how

district evaluation policies should be communicated

to teachers raises questions about the consistency o

evaluation practice, both within and across schools,

and about the criteria used in making decisions about

proessional development, tenure, and termination.

11. What ormal grievance procedures

are to be in place or teachers?


standard error = 4.4 percent) submitted policies

that included teachers rights to le grievances.

Most districts authorized teachers to provide an

addendum to the evaluation (82 percent), but some

gave teachers the right to request another evalu-

ation (7 percent), to request a dierent evaluator

(5 percent), or to allow an arbitrator to review theevaluation (5 percent).

12. How are teacher evaluation results to be used?

Te written evaluation policies o 67 o the 140

participating districts (48 percent, standard

error = 6.6 percent) stipulated how the evalua-

tion results should be used: to inorm personnel

decisions (60 percent), to suggest instructional

improvements (39 percent), to inorm proessional

development goals (28 percent), and to use or

remediation (12 percent).

o inorm personnel decisions. Policies rom 40districts (60 percent) state that evaluation results

should be incorporated into teacher employment

status and personnel decisions, in particular those

o probationary and nontenured teachers.

o suggest improvement. Te policies rom 26

districts (39 percent) called or evaluations to help

teachers improve their practice and in particular

their identied areas o weakness. Nineteen (28

percent) district documents stated that the evalu-

ation results would be used to determine proes-sional development needs. Te resulting proes-

sional development initiatives may be internal to

the district or external. Documentation rom eight

districts (12 percent) was coded as remediation

reevaluation, which meant that a poor evaluation

resulted in intensive assistance or the teacher.

Other uses. Eight district policies (12 percent)

included only very broad uses or evaluations. One

district indicated that teacher evaluation results

were used to comply with mandates. Anotherdistrict used results to improve the educational

program. Such all-encompassing uses allow or

expansive interpretation.

13. How are teacher evaluation results to be reported?


standard error = 6.9 percent) had policies stating

how evaluation results should be compiled and

reported. Several reporting methods emerged, in-

cluding the use o summative evaluation orms (79percent), written narratives (30 percent), ormative

evaluation (19 percent), and teacher conerences

(14 percent).

Summative evaluation orms. O the 43 districts that

specied how to report the evaluation results, 34

(79 percent) required that a completed summative

evaluation orm be signed by the evaluator and the


25/37

appendix B 17

teacher and then stored in the teachers personnel

le. In some cases, the superintendent also received

a copy. Te orm itsel was oen the data-gathering

tool used to assess the teachers perormance.

Written narratives. Documentation rom 13districts (30 percent) explicitly required a writ-

ten narrative. One policy stated that narrative

summaries are to include specic teaching as-

signments, length/service in the district, dates o

observations, specic strengths, weaknesses or

areas cited or improvement needed, improvement

tasks required, specic contract recommendations

and the teachers signature and the evaluators

signature. Te narratives were oen considered

the summative evaluation report.

Multiple ormative evaluations. Eight policies

use data rom ormative evaluations conducted

throughout the school year to complete a sum-

mative evaluation orm. Te ormative evalua-

tion orms were typically required or classroom

observations. In some districts the set o behaviorsand practices observed in the ormative and sum-

mative evaluation was the same.

Conerences. Documentation rom six districts

explicitly stated that the administrator, supervi-

sor, or evaluator was to hold a conerence with the

teacher to discuss summative evaluation ndings.

Some districts required that the conerence take

place beore the summative evaluation report was

led.


26/37


taBle c1

Number of school districts in the region and in the sample by state

S dss dss s

iw 370 31

is 887 58

i 291 20

m 553 38

ms 348 23

o 240 16

Wss 437 30

t 3,126

Source: Authors analysis based on data described in appendix A.

taBle c2

Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility by region and by sample

F - b dss dss s

dss w ss 40 ss b 2,390 166

dss w 40 b 736 50


taBle c3

Minority student population by region and by sample

m s dss dss s

lss 40 -cs 2,873 202

40100 -cs 248 14

mss 5 0


appEndIx c

dEscRIpTIon o TEachER EvaluaTIon

sTudy sTRaTIIEd RandoM saMplE


27/37

appendix c 19

taBle c4

District locale by state, regional data

S

ds

tub Sbb r

iw 15 92 262 369

is 34 516 337 887

i 25 143 122 290

m 37 269 247 553

ms 14 116 215 345

o 22 149 69 240

Wss 26 189 222 437

t 173 1,474 1,474 3,12


taBle c5District locale by state, sample data

S

ds

tub Sbb r

iw 2 6 23 31

is 2 33 23 58

i 2 10 8 20

m 3 18 17 38

ms 1 8 14 23

o 1 10 5 16

Wss 2 13 15 30

t 12 98 100 216


taBle c6

Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, regional data

S

F - b

t

lss 40

ss b

m 40

ss b

iw 310 60 370

is 679 208 887

i 223 68 291

m 362 191 553

ms 246 102 348

o 184 56 240

Wss 386 51 437

t 2,390 736 3



28/37


taBle c7

Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, sample data

S

F - b

t

lss 40

ss b

m 40

ss b

iw 25 6 31

is 38 20 58

i 13 7 20

m 28 10 38

ms 19 4 23

o 13 3 16

Wss 30 0 30

t 162 48


taBle c8

Minority student population, regional data

S

n-cs s

tlss 40 m 40

iw 366 3 369

is 758 129 887

i 279 11 290

m 507 46 553

ms 330 15 345

o 217 23 240

Wss 416 21 437

t 2,873 248 3


taBle c9

Minority student population, sample data

S

n-cs s

tlss 40 m 40

iw 31 0 31

is 48 10 58

i 20 0 20

m 35 3 38

ms 23 0 23

o 16 0 16

Wss 29 1 30

t 196 14



29/37

appendix d 21

eacher _______________________________________ Administrator ____________________________________

Building ________________________ Subject/Grade Level(s) ________________________ Date _______________

Dates o Observations: __________________________________________________________________________

Date(s) o I.D.P. Planning/Goal Setting _____________________________________________________________

enure: _____ Yes _____ No

Probationary: _____ 1st year _____ 2nd year _____ 3rd year _____ 4th year Mentor: ________________________

Is a Proessional/Individual Development Plan part o this Evaluation? _____ Yes _____ No

I. Instruction

S = Satisactory NI = Needs improvement UN = Unsatisactory NA = Not applicable/not observed

Overall rating S NI UN NA

1. Prepares or assigned classes and responsibilities

(shows evidence o adequate preparation) S NI UN NA

2. Demonstrates clear purpose and objectives S NI UN NA

3. Provides instruction at the appropriate level o difculty

or each learner S NI UN NA

4. Responds to the eorts o the learners and adjusts instruction to

maximize learning by using a variety o methods and materials S NI UN NA

5. Provides opportunities or active involvement o the learner S NI UN NA

6. Monitors learning interactions and checks learners or understanding S NI UN NA

7. Implements District approved curriculum S NI UN NA

8. Demonstrates competency in subject matter S NI UN NA

9. Appropriately assesses and records learner perormance S NI UN NA

10. Demonstrates productive use o time on task S NI UN NA

appEndIx d

suMMaTIvE TEachER EvaluaTIon oRM


30/37


11. Appropriately utilizes available technological resources S NI UN NA

12. Organizes instruction and monitors achievement toward

mastery learning or all students S NI UN NA

13. Utilizes current research-based instructional strategies toenhance learning S NI UN NA

14. Monitors and adjusts to accommodate learning styles S NI UN NA

Comments/recommendations on instruction:

II. Environment



1. Establishes an environment that ocuses on student learning S NI UN NA

2. akes all necessary and reasonable precautions to providea healthy and sae environment S NI UN NA

3. Utilizes equipment, materials, and acilities appropriately S NI UN NA

4. reats individuals within the school community with

dignity and respect S NI UN NA



31/37

appendix d 23

III. Communication



1. Demonstrates active listening skills S NI UN NA

2. Establishes and maintains open lines o communication S NI UN NA

3. Demonstrates eective verbal and written communication S NI UN NA


IV. Policy and procedures



1. Maintains records as required by law, district policy,and administrative regulations S NI UN NA

2. Attends and participates in district, aculty and

departmental meetings S NI UN NA

3. Abides by school district policies, building procedures,

master agreement and state and ederal law S NI UN NA



32/37


IV. Proessionalism



1. Participates in lielong learning activities, (sta development,

continuing ed., university studies and proessional research S NI UN NA

2. Creates a avorable proessional impact by words, action,

appearance and attitudes S NI UN NA

3. Shares general school and district responsibilities S NI UN NA

4. Establishes and maintains proessional relations S NI UN NA

5. Contributes to building and district mission and goals S NI UN NA


VI. Reviews o program/teaching goals and/or IDP: Overall rating S NI UN NA



Overall rating o the evaluation: S NI UN NA


eacher Signature Date Administrator Signature Date


33/37

appendix e 25

Class taught Grade

Date eacher

p-bs ps-bs

1. What topic/unit will be taught? Is this new input,

practice on objectives, review, or a diagnostic lesson?

2. What are the objectives or this lesson? 2. Were the objectives observed during the lesson?

3. What procedure will the teacher use to accomplish

the objectives?

3. Were the procedures implemented? Were they

eective?

4. What activit ies will the students e doing? 4. Were the student activit ies implemented as planned?

Were they eective?

5. Which particular criterion/criteria do you want

monitored?

5. Indicate pertinent data gathered relevant to the

criteria.

Demonstrates eective planning skillsA.

Implements the lesson plan to ensure time on task.B.

Provides positive motivational experiencesC.

Communicates eectively with students.D.

Provides or eective student evaluation.E.

Displays knowledge o curriculum and subject matter.F.

Provides opportunities or individual dierences.G.

Demonstrates skills in classroom managementH.

Sets high standards or student behavior.I.

Other:J.

Form adapted rom Manatt (1988).

appEndIx E

oRMaTIvE TEachER EvaluaTIon oRM


34/37


REEREncEs

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003). eachers and

student achievement in the Chicago public high schools

(Working Paper 2002-28; Rev. ed.). Chicago: Federal

Reserve Bank o Chicago. Retrieved January 31, 2007,rom http://www.chicagoed.org/publications/working-

papers/papers/wp2002-28.pd

Beerens, D. R. (2000).Evaluating teachers or proessional

growth. Tousands Oak, CA: Corwin Press.

Clark, D. (1993). eacher evaluation: A review o the lit-

erature with implications or evaluators. Long Beach,

CA: Caliornia State University. (ERIC Document No.

ED359174)

Danielson, C., & McGreal, . L. (2000). eacher evaluation

to enhance proessional practice. Alexandria, VA: Asso-

ciation or Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983).

eacher evaluation in the organizational context: A re-

view o t

description: tags: rel 2007030

Documents