case study evaluation of data for teacher evaluation assignment

Assessing Innovation: A Case Study Approach to Teacher Evaluation Systems

• Share article

In a 2013 Guardian article , Professor Sugata Mitra suggested that students should be allowed to use devices and the Internet in exams. Because students would be able to look up answers instantly, he argued that the tests would need to change to address content that could not be “ Googled .” Since devices could check spelling, grammar, and computation, then it would also not make sense for exams to assess that type of content. However, because technology cannot help a student analyze a passage, synthesize information, create definitions, or explain a solution, then the exams would need to assess those higher order skills. If the tests change, then teachers would shift their practice to best prepare their students to succeed. According to Professor Mitra’s logic, change the test, change the teaching. At that moment, I began to consider education as a chicken-and-egg paradox.

This past week, I faced a similar paradox in an academic exercise. Having spent the term exploring the discipline of education through the lenses of history, sociology, anthropology, and economics, my assignment required me to examined a series of case studies focused on teacher quality and evaluation from those disciplinary perspectives. In reading those case studies, I had to consider the implications of using each discipline to inform the design of an ideal teacher evaluation system for an imaginary district.

At that moment, I returned to the chicken-and-egg . Teachers would adjust their practice based on the evaluation system; therefore, design one to mirror the desired practice. In workshops, teachers often explain that they want to innovate, to incorporate new technologies, and to try new approaches; however, they feel stifled by the requirements of their assessment and evaluation systems. In my imaginary district, I realized that if I evaluated my fictitious teachers based on how they chose to innovate, then they would have the freedom to experiment.

To begin, I read about the history of teacher evaluation systems from Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston (2011). According to this article, the Clinical Supervision Model of Morris Cogan requires teachers to be in a continuous state of learning and improvement. Goldhammer, a student of Cogan, elaborated on that work and claimed that the holistic practice of a teacher should be observed, as should the interactions between students and teachers. To do this, Goldhammer presents five phases of clinical supervision: Pre-Observation Conference, Classroom Observation, Analysis, Supervision Conference, and Analysis of Analysis. This structure offered a guide for how I might construct the evaluation process for my fictional teachers. Though it did not necessarily explain the criteria of that assessment, from this historical perspective, I started to design the architecture of my system.

From a sociological standpoint, I explored a case study about the Implementation of Transfer Incentives as a means to encourage high-performing teachers to shift to low-performing schools where they might have a greater impact on student achievement (Glazerman, Protik, Teh, Bruch, & Seftor, 2012). While this article did not indicate whether or not the financial incentives, or the transfers, directly improved student performance, it did indicate that these high performing teachers provided additional value to their colleagues. Within my fictional evaluation system, I would want to incorporate financial incentives and rewards for teachers who support their colleagues, establish Professional Learning Communities, as well as develop content and materials to share with the broader educational community.

Donaldson (2012) presented an anthropological perspective that highlighted key criteria for an effective evaluation system. First, teachers should be involved in the goal-setting process and have an opportunity to determine their own criteria for assessment. In my imaginary system, these goals would center around questions rather than statements:

• Do teachers readily incorporate a variety of pedagogical strategies to reach their students, and identify the rationale behind their decisions?
• Does the curriculum align to 3-4 Essential Questions (McTighe & Wiggins 2013) to provide coherence and incite inquiry throughout the year?
• How do teachers incorporate elements of Universal Design for Learning as a tangible framework to ensure that they are best reaching all of their students?

Next, the systems described by Donaldson (2012) linked some components of teacher evaluation to student performance. I agree with that in theory but would want the performance measurement to focus on cognitive growth and the attainment of critical-thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills rather than the achievement of a specified benchmark. Additionally, student performance would be measured based on a portfolio review and self-assessment in addition to test scores.

My fictional system would also broaden the concept of teacher and student observation. The Clinical Observation Model relies heavily on administrators spending time in teacher classrooms. Donaldson (2012) highlighted that some teachers felt as though school leaders either did not spend enough time making observations and providing feedback or that they did not have the background knowledge to do so. To remedy this situation, my fictional system would include video reviews and feedback from expert teachers and colleagues in addition to in-person observations. Department, division, and grade-level leaders would also be required to provide feedback to their colleagues, and the videos would provide an opportunity for this type of informal review.

Finally, my system would require teachers to maintain a public portfolio to allow for transparency into the classroom as well as model critical media literacy and digital citizenship skills for students. These portfolios would ensure that teachers regularly reflect on their practice and ensure alignment with their instructional goals.

Quantitative research from economists Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2011) indicated that teacher quality has a lasting impact on students’ lives in terms of their college choices, earning potential, and social well-being. While my evaluation system may seem intensive and requiring a lot of additional work by teachers, the potential increase in teacher quality and student performance within my imaginary district would be worth it.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. (Working Paper No. 17699). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research . Retrieved from

Donaldson, M.L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress . Retrieved from http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/12/TeacherPerspectives.pdf

Glazerman, S., Protik, A., Teh, B., Bruch, J., Seftor, N., & Mathematica Policy Research. (2012). Moving high-performing teachers: Implementation of transfer incentives in seven districts. ( No. NCEE 2012-4051). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Marzano, T. Frontier, & D. Livingston (Eds), Effective supervision, pp.12-28. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from Disciplinary Perspectives on Education 10 http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/110019/chapters/A-Brief-History-of- Supervision-and-Evaluation.aspx

The opinions expressed in EdTech Researcher are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Advertisement

Teacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests

• Published: 18 June 2019
• Volume 31 , pages 289–314, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• William A. Firestone   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9448-3274 1 &
• Morgaen L. Donaldson 2  

2024 Accesses

21 Citations

Explore all metrics

Most recent research on teacher evaluation examines evaluation’s measurement properties and accountability uses. Less research studies how evaluation data can improve teaching and student learning. In other contexts, researchers have examined how teachers use data to improve their practice. From general research on teachers’ data use, we apply the data-driven decision-making (DDDM) framework to synthesize research on teacher evaluation since 2009. We illustrate how evaluation data are collected, analyzed, and synthesized to inform instruction and improve student learning. Most research focused on teachers’ use of observation data, not their use of student data. We find that the teachers’ use of evaluation data involves more social learning than the DDDM model implies. The effects of observation on instruction and student learning are often weak, apparently because observers lack the time and knowledge to support teachers’ thorough analysis and synthesis of evaluation data. Implications for policy and further research are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reframing conversations about teacher quality: school and district administrators’ perceptions of the validity, reliability, and justifiability of a new teacher evaluation system

Noelle A. Paufler & Chris Clark

The Role of “Informational Significance” in Shaping Louisiana Elementary Teachers’ Use of High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation Data for Instructional Decision-Making

Teacher Evaluation with Multiple Indicators: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations Regarding Validity

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 46 (5), 258–267.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., ..., Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Blanc, S., Christman, J. B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E., & Bulkley, K. E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85 (2), 205–225.

Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8 , 178–193.

Cohen, J., Schuldt, L. C., Brown, L., & Grossman, P. (2016). Leveraging observation tools for instructional improvement: Exploring variability in uptake of ambitious instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 118 (11), 1–36.

Google Scholar  

Collins, C. (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers find no value in the SAS education value-added assessment system (EVAAS®). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 , 1–42.

Cosner, S. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39 (5), 568–589.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd Edition ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument: 2013 edition . Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.

Danielson, C. (2016). Its time to rethink teacher evaluation. Education Week , pp. 20–24.

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. G. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53 (3), 285–328.

Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17 (1), 7–28.

Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36 , 1–11.

Derrington, M. L., & Kirk, J. (2017). Linking job-embedded professional development and mandated teacher evaluation: Teacher as learner. Professional Development in Education, 43 (4), 630–644.

Donahue, E. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the impact of an evaluation system on classroom instructional practices Available from Proquest ISBN 9781321659108.

Donahue, E., & Vogel, L. R. (2016). Teacher perceptions of the impact of teacher evaluation on classroom instructional practices. Paper presented at the. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–34). Washington, DC.

Donaldson, M. L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform . Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C. D., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzalez, R., Woulfin, S., & Makuch, A. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut's system for educator evaluation and development . Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Center for Education Policy Analysis.

Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. (2015). Teacher evaluation for accountability and development. In H. F. Ladd & M. E. Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 174–193). New York: Routledge.

Finfgeld-Connett, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2013). Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69 (1), 194–204.

Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43 (2), 100–107.

Firestone, W. A., Blitz, C. L., Gitomer, D. H., Gradinarova-Kirova, D., Shcherbakov, A., & Nordin, T. L. (2013). Year 1 report: New Jersey teacher evaluation pilot program . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

Firestone, W. A., Nordin, T. L., Shcherbakov, A., Kirova, D., & Blitz, C. L. (2014). Pilot teacher evaluation program: Year 2 final report . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

Ford, T., Van Sickle, M. E., Clark, L. V., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Schween, D. (2015). Teacher self- efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31 (2), 1–47.

Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). Impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals . Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Gitomer, D., Bell, C., Qi, Y., McCaffrey, D., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). The instructional challenge in improving teaching quality: Lessons from a classroom observation protocol. Teachers College Record, 116 (6), 1–32.

Goldhaber, D. (2015). Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher, 44 (2), 87–95.

Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Implicit measurement of teacher quality: Using performance on the job to inform teacher tenure decisions. American Economic Review, 100 , 250–255.

Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015a). Make room for value added: Principals' human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 42 (2), 96–104.

Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C., Murphy, J., Blisset, R., & Porter, A. (2015b). Making time for instructional leadership. In The evolution of the SAM process (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113 (3), 479–508.

Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51 (3), 383–406.

Gummer, E. B., & Mandinach, E. S. (2015). Building a conceptual framework for data literacy. Teachers College Record, 117 (4), 1.

Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26 (1), 5–28.

Hanushek, E. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165–180). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100 (2), 267–271.

Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2014). Skills, productivity and the evaluation of teacher performance. Economics of Education Review, 40 , 183–204.

Hellrung, K., & Hartig, J. (2013). Review: Understanding and using feedback – A review of empirical studies concerning feedback from external evaluations to teachers. Educational Research Review, 9 , 174–190.

Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83 (2), 371–384.

Hoogland, I., Schildkamp, K., van, D. K., Heitink, M., Kippers, W., Veldkamp, B., & Dijkstra, A. M. (2016). Prerequisites for data-based decision making in the classroom: Research evidence and practical illustrations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60 , 377–386.

Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the "data-driven" mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making). In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: 106th yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 105–131). Chicago: NSSE.

Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., McCray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring in action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 81 (1), 45–63.

Jennings, J. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers’ use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114 (11), 1–23.

Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppescu, S. (2015). Teachers' perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago's REACH students. Educational Resarcher, 44 (2), 105–116.

Johnson, S. M., & Fiarman, S. E. (2012). The potential of peer review. Educational Leadership, 70 (3), 20–25.

Kimball, S. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16 (4), 241–268.

Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45 (1), 34–70.

Koedel, C., Li, J., Tan, L., & Springer, M. G. (2017). The impact of performance ratings on job satisfaction for public school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 54 (2), 241–278.

Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52 (5), 711–753.

Lachlan-Hache, L. (2015). The art and science of student learning objectives: A research synthesis . Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record , 116(1).

Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118 (2), 143–166.

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106 , 534–575.

Mandinach, E.B. & Honey, M. (eds) (2008). Data-driven decision-making: An introduction . New York: Teachers College Press.

Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 42 (7), 71–85.

Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60 , 366–376.

Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record , 114(11).

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McCullough, M., English, B., Angus, M. H., & Gill, B. (2015). Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts. (REL 2015–093).Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

McGrath, J. E. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and methods. In J. E. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Judgement calls in research (pp. 69–102). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McGuin, P (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, (26) 1, 136–159.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Munger, M. S. (2012). Shared responsibility for teacher quality: How do principals respond to peer assistance and review? (Ed.D.).

Noblit, G., & Hare, D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching OECD Publishing.

Penuel, W. R., & Shepard, L. A. (2016). Assessment and teaching. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th Ed. ed., pp. 787–850). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in development: Six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39 (3), 383–406.

Ruffini, S. J., Makkonen, R., Tejwani, J., & Diaz, M. (2014). Principal and teacher perceptions of implementation of multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems in Arizona. REL 2015–062 . San Francisco: Regional Educational Laboratory West.

Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation . Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Sebastian, J., Camburn, E. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2018). Portraits of principal practice: Time allocation and school principal work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54 (1), 47–84.

Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: Implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6 (4), 319–343.

Sporte, S. E., Stevens, W. D., Healey, K., Jiang, J., Hart, H., & University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago, School Research. (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago's REACH students . University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago school research.

Stecher, B. M., Garet, M., Holtzman, D., & Hamilton, L. (2012). Implementing measures of teacher effectiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, 94 (3), 39–43.

Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., et al. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness: Final report: The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016 . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (4), 423–448.

Steinberg, M. P., & Sartain, L. (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10 (4), 535–572.

Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11 (3), 340–359.

Stosich, L. F. (2016). E. L. Common standards and teacher evaluation: Principals and teachers’ craft coherence among multiple accountability policies . Washington, DC: Paper presented at the Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance . Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Supovitz, J. A. (2012). Getting at student understanding - the key to teachers’ use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114 (11).

Taut, S., Santelices, M. V., Araya, C., & Manzi, J. (2011). Perceived effects and uses of the national teacher evaluation system in Chilean elementary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 (4), 218–229.

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102 (7), 3628–3651.

Thomas, E., Wingert, P., Conant, E., & Register, S. (2010). Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers. Newsweek, 155 (11), 24.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: The case of using student achievement information for instructional improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (1), 3–22.

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 , 891–899.

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25 (4), 509–530.

Vaillant, D., & Gonzalez-Vaillant, G. (2017). Within the teacher evaluation policies black box: Two case studies. Teacher Development, 21 (3), 404–421.

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness . Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.

White, B. R., Cowhy, J., Stevens, W. D., & Sporte, S. E. (2012). Designing and implementing the next generation of teacher evaluation systems: Lessons learned from case studies in five Illinois districts . Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 , 57–67.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

William A. Firestone

Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, USA

Morgaen L. Donaldson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Firestone .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Analytic Dataset

Cherasaro, T. L., Brodersen, R. M., Reale, M. L., Yanoski, D. C., Regional Educational Laboratory Central, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, & Marzano Research, L. (2016). Teachers’ Responses to Feedback from Evaluators: What Feedback Characteristics Matter? REL 2017–190.

Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34 (2), 267–297.

Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal Of Research And Studies , 361–11.

Derrington, M. L., & Kirk, J. (2017). Linking job-embedded professional development and mandated teacher evaluation: Teacher as learner. Professional Development In Education , 43 (4), 630–644.

Donahue, E. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the impact of an evaluation system on classroom instructional practices Available from Proquest. ISBN 9781321659108.

Donahue, E., & Vogel, L. R. (2016). Teacher perceptions of the impact of teacher evaluation on classroom instructional practices. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. 1–34.

Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C. D., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzalez, R., Woulfin, S., & Makuch, A. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut’s system for educator evaluation and development. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Center for Education Policy Analysis.

Donaldson, M. L., Woulfin, S., LeChasseur, K., & Cobb, C. D. (2016). The structure and substance of teachers’ opportunities to learn about teacher evaluation reform: Promise or pitfall for equity? Equity & Excellence in Education, 49 (2), 183–201.

Firestone, W. A., Blitz, C. L., Gitomer, D. H., Gradinarova-Kirova, D., Shcherbakov, A., & Nordin, T. L. (2013). Year 1 report: New Jersey teacher evaluation pilot program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

Firestone, W. A., Nordin, T. L., Shcherbakov, A., Kirova, D., & Blitz, C. L. (2014). Pilot teacher evaluation program: Year 2 final report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

Flores, M. A. (2012). The implementation of a new policy on teacher appraisal in Portugal: How do teachers experience it at school? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24 (4), 351–368.

Ford, T., Van Sickle, M. E., Clark, L. V., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Schween, D. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31 (2) 1-47.

Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). Impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Jiang J, Sporte S, Luppescu S. Teacher Perspectives on Evaluation Reform: Chicago’s REACH Students. Educational Researcher March 1, 2015;44(2):105–116.

Johnson, S. M., & Fiarman, S. E. (2012). The potential of peer review. Educational Leadership , 70 (3), 20–25.

Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly , 52 (5), 711–753.

Larsen, M. (2009). Stressful, hectic, daunting: A critical policy study of the ontario teacher performance appraisal system. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (95), 1.

Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2015). Teacher evaluation, performance-related pay, and constructivist instruction. Educational Policy , 29 (2), 375–401.

Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S., Strunk, K. O., Lincove, J. A., & Huguet, A. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis , 39 (4), 539–570.

McCullough, M., English, B., Angus, M. H., Gill, B (2015). Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts. (REL 2015–093). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

McDuffie, A. R., Drake, C., Choppin, J., Davis, J. D., Magaña, M. V., & Carson, C. (2017). Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Related Assessment and Teacher Evaluation Systems. Educational Policy , 31 (2), 139–179.

Munger, M. S. (2012). Shared responsibility for teacher quality: How do principals respond to peer assistance and Review? .

Phillips, S. R., Mercier, K., & Doolittle, S. (2017). Experiences of teacher evaluation systems on high school physical education programs. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy , 22 (4), 364–377.

Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in Development: Six High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools Implement the Massachusetts Teacher Evaluation Policy. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis , 39 (3), 383–406.

Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ Sensemaking and Enactment of Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration , 53 (3), 374–392.

Rosen, R., Parise, L. M., & MDRC. (2017). Using Evaluation Systems for Teacher Improvement: Are School Districts Ready to Meet New Federal Goals?.

Ruffini, S. J., Makkonen, R., Tejwani, J., Diaz, M. (2014). Principal and Teacher Perceptions of Implementation of Multiple-Measure Teacher Evaluation Systems in Arizona. REL 2015–062. San Francisco: Regional Educational Laboratory West.

Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation . Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Slotnik, W. J., Bugler, D., Liang, G. (2014). Real progress in Maryland: Student learning objectives and teacher and principal evaluation. Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center at WestEd.

Sporte, S. E., Stevens, W. D., Healey, K., Jiang, J., Hart, H., (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago’s REACH students. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., . . . Chambers, J. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness: Final report: The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016. (). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from Social Science Premium Collection

Steinberg, M. P. (. 1.)., & Sartain, L. (. 2.). (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10 (4), 535–572.

Stosich, E. L. (2016). Common standards and teacher evaluation: Principals and teachers’ craft coherence among multiple accountability policies. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Taut, S., Santelices, M. V., Araya, C., & Manzi, J. (2011). Perceived effects and uses of the national teacher evaluation system in chilean elementary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 (4), 218–229.

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, (7), 3628–3651

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness & School Improvement , 25 (4), 509–530.

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice , 23 (1), 6–24.

von der Embse, N. P., Schoemann, A. M., Kilgus, S. P., Wicoff, M., & Bowler, M. (2017). The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional practices: A moderated mediation model. Educational Psychology , 37 (3), 312–331.

Vaillant, D., & Gonzalez-Vaillant, G. (2017). Within the teacher evaluation policies black box: Two case studies. Teacher Development, 21 (3), 404–421. doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1259649

White, B. R., Cowhy, J., Stevens, W. D., Sporte, S. E. (2012). Designing and implementing the next generation of teacher evaluation systems: Lessons learned from case studies in

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Firestone, W.A., Donaldson, M.L. Teacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests. Educ Asse Eval Acc 31 , 289–314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z

Download citation

Received : 14 September 2018

Accepted : 03 June 2019

Published : 18 June 2019

Issue Date : 15 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Teacher evaluation
• Observation data
• Student data
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Don't Miss Out!

Subscribe to the E-Bulletin for regular updates on research, free resources, solutions, and job postings from WestEd.

Subscribe Now

• Resources Home
• New Releases
• Top Downloads
• Webinar Archives
• Best Sellers
• Login / Create Account

How Are Teacher Evaluation Data Used in Five Arizona Districts?

By Reino Makkonen , Jaclyn Tejwani , Nitya Venkateswaran

Description

This REL West study describes how five Arizona school districts are using teacher evaluation data to inform their decisions concerning teacher professional development, compensation, school and classroom assignment, remediation, and retention.

During the 2014/15 school year the study districts administered their own new teacher evaluation systems, which were developed to align with state evaluation regulations passed in 2011.

WestEd researchers developed a case study for each of the five districts and then summarized common practices and perceptions across districts related to the use of evaluation data.

Findings were drawn from interviews with district officials and instructional coaches, and online surveys of school principals and teachers.

Key Findings

• Evaluation data shape the work of instructional coaches and the support opportunities (books, webinars, and online videos) suggested for teachers
• Observation data are perceived by school and district leaders as more useful for professional development decisions than student test results because they are collected over repeated occasions and made available during the school year
• Online systems facilitate timely observation-based feedback
• Teachers view themselves as responsible for their own professional growth and are somewhat skeptical of school- and districtwide professional development
• Evaluation data are not systematically used to identify teacher leaders or to assign teachers to schools or classrooms, but such data serve as the basis for decisions on remediation and allocation of state performance pay funds
• Teachers were more skeptical than administrators about the benefits of the new evaluations

These findings suggest positive benefits from the organizational structures that support the review of data during the school year — standards-based observation frameworks, benchmark assessments, professional learning communities, and instructional coaching and feedback.

Resource Details

Product information, related resources.

Principal and Teacher Perceptions of Implementation of Multiple-Measure Teacher Evaluation Systems in Arizona

This descriptive study explores how new teacher evaluation systems were put in practice in 10 volunteer school districts in Arizona following a shift in state policy.

A Descriptive Study of the Pilot Implementation of Student Learning Objectives in Arizona and Utah

This study of the pilot implementation of student learning objectives in Arizona and Utah in 2013/14 offers new evidence about this expanding approach to teacher evaluation.

Analysis of the Stability of Teacher-Level Growth Scores From the Student Growth Percentile Model

How does a popular measure of teacher effectiveness hold up under scrutiny? Find out in this REL West research report.

Stay Connected

Subscribe to the E-Bulletin and receive regular updates on research, free resources, solutions, and job postings from WestEd.

Your download will be available after you subscribe, or choose no thanks .

Ask a question, request information, make a suggestion, or sign up for our newsletter.

• WestEd Bulletin
• Insights & Impact
• Equity in Focus
• Areas of Work
• Charters & School Choice
• Comprehensive Assessment Solutions
• Culturally Responsive & Equitable Systems
• Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Well-Being
• Economic Mobility, Postsecondary, and Workforce Systems
• English Learner & Migrant Education Services
• Justice & Prevention
• Learning & Technology
• Mathematics Education
• Resilient and Healthy Schools and Communities
• School and District Transformation
• Special Education Policy and Practice
• Strategic Resource Allocation and Systems Planning
• Supporting and Sustaining Teachers
• Professional Development
• Research & Evaluation
• How We Can Help
• Reports & Publications
• Technical Assistance
• Technical Assistance Services
• Policy Analysis and Other Support
• R&D Alert
• Board of Directors
• Equity at WestEd
• WestEd Pressroom
• WestEd Offices
• Work with WestEd

Work at WestEd