Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: a preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined attitudes and beliefs regarding teacher evaluation of teachers and their school administrators in the state of New Jersey, USA. The sample included 33 school administrators and 583 Pre-K through 12th grade teachers from four high-poverty urban school districts (22 schools). Participant attitudes and beliefs were assessed using the Teacher Evaluation Experience Scale (TEES; Reddy et al. in Educational Assessment, 21(2), 120–134, 2016). TEES is a multi-informant assessment designed to measure teachers’ and school administrators’ experiences with teacher evaluation through five scales (i.e., total and subscales of system, feedback, process, and motivation to change) and six open-ended questions. Based on the qualitative analyses, teachers identified collaborative communication and evaluation feedback as the most helpful aspects of their evaluation process. Based on the quantitative analyses, however, their average ratings did not exceed neutral on any of the four subscales. Overall findings suggest that school administrators’ experiences with teacher evaluation are more favorable than teachers’ experiences. Moderate correlations are found between participant characteristics and TEES scales. Implications for teacher evaluation are presented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: the contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational, Psychology, 100, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avalos, B., & Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: the case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore, P. J., Auld, R., & Lee, D. L. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education: equal access and pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: a concerns based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 879–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claudet, J. G. (1999). An interpretive analysis of educator change processes in response to program innovation: implications for personnel evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. B. (2004). Teacher performance evaluation: a stressful experience from a private secondary school. Educational Research, 46(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1) Retrieved from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

  • Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: how beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. R., Pool, J. E., & Mits-Cash, M. (2000). Issues in implementing a new teacher assessment system in a large urban school district: results of a qualitative field study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in National Policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, L. M. (2005). Curriculum and assessment considerations for young children from culturally linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 837–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. (2004). Looking at policies: policy instruments and cost effectiveness. In Policy studies for educational leaders: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, T.A., Reddy, L.A., Kettler, R.J., Kurz, A., & Lekwa, A.J. (2016). Improving high stakes decisions via formative assessment, professional development, and comprehensive educator evaluation: the school system improvement project. Teachers College Record (Yearbook), 118(14). Retrieved August 22, 2016 from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 221540.

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (1998). Effective Teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership & Management, 18(2), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isore, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. In OECD Education Working Papers No. 23. Paris: OECD Publishing Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. L. (2003). Research methods and statistics: a critical thinking approach (p. 2003). Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., & Roach, A. T. (2015). Addressing the missing instructional data problem: using a teacher log to document tier 1 instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36(6), 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

  • Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lekwa, A., Reddy, L. A., & Shernoff, E. (2016). Advancing instructional coaching with teacher formative assessment and input. In S. Lawrence (Ed.), Literacy Program Evaluation and Development Initiatives for P-12 Teaching. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinn, P. (2012). The state of teacher evaluation reform: state of education agency capacity and the implementation of new teacher-evaluation systems. Center for American Progress.

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). Embracing contraries: implementing and sustaining teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G. (2001). Assessment of teacher relations to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: a pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: the case of missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). State of the states 2013 connect the dots: using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/State_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluations_NCTQ_Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). State of the states 2015: evaluating teaching, leading and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality Retrieved from: http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/StateofStates2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • National School Lunch Program, 7 C.F.R. § 210 (2012).

  • No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq (2001).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual Framework and examples of country practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Teachers for the 21st century: using evaluation to improve teaching. OECD Publishing.

  • Reddy, L. A., & Dudek, C. (2014). Teacher progress monitoring of instructional and behavioral management practices: an evidence-based approach to improving classroom practices. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology., 2, 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, L. A., Dudek, C. M., Fabiano, G. A., & Peters, S. (2015a). Measuring teacher self-report on classroom practices: construct validity and reliability of the classroom strategies scale—teacher form. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, L. A., Kettler, R. J., & Kurz, A. (2015b). School-wide educator evaluation for improving school capacity and student achievement in high poverty schools: year 1 of the school system improvement project. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation., 25, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, L. A., Dudek, C. M., Kettler, R. J., Kurz, A., & Peters, S. (2016). Measuring educators’ attitudes and beliefs about evaluation: initial evidence for the teacher evaluation experience scale. Educational Assessment, 21(2), 120–134.

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Carson, D. (2005). Methods for assessing cultural bias in tests. In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology (pp. 795–823). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1991). Social interaction as apprenticeship in thinking: guided participation in spatial planning. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 349–364). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Sawchuk, S. (2016). ESSA looses reins on teacher evaluations, qualifications. Education Week. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/essa-loosens-reins-on-teacher-evaluations-qualifications.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1

  • Schmidt, M. J., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Whittaker, T., Richter, M., Johnson, N., & Trussel, R. (2008). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: comparisons among high and low risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stormont, M. (2007). Fostering resilience in your children at risk for failure: ctrategies for grades K-3. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stormont, M., Covington, S., & Lewis, T. J. (2006). Using data to inform systems: assessing teacher implementation of key features of program-wide positive behavioral support in head start classrooms. Beyond Behavior, 15(3), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act (TEACHNJ), N.J.S.18A:6–11 amendment S-1455 (2012).

  • Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornero, B., & Taut, S. (2010). A manadatory, high-stakes national teacher evaluation system: Perceptions and attributions of teachers who actively refuse to participate. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2007). Professional standards for teachers. London: Training and Development Agency for Teachers Retrieved from http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/s/standards_a4.pdf.

  • Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2009). Teachers’ perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A validity study of the Policy Characteristics Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 924–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T. (2013. How do high-performing nations evaluate teachers. neaToday. Retrieved from: http://neatoday.org/2013/03/25/how-do-high-performing-nations-evaluate-teachers/

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Linda A. Reddy, Christopher M. Dudek, Stephanie Peters, Alexander Alperin & Ryan J. Kettler

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Alexander Kurz

Authors
  1. Linda A. Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher M. Dudek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Alperin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ryan J. Kettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Kurz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda A. Reddy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reddy, L.A., Dudek, C.M., Peters, S. et al. Teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: a preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts. Educ Asse Eval Acc 30, 47–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9263-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9263-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation