Advertisement

Teacher Quality and Evaluation and the Development of Accomplished Practice

  • Christine FordeEmail author
  • Margery McMahon
Chapter

Abstract

Teacher evaluation has become a key policy issue. Comprehensive programmes have been developed in the US which include assessment criteria and quality indicators and may also be linked to teacher tenure, recertification or pay. In the UK and NI less elaborate systems centre around monitoring classroom practice, appraisal and review using quality assurance frameworks or professional standards. The issue of the failing teacher highlights the complex process of improving practice. Defining effective practice and providing feedback that enables teachers to enhance their practice are crucial elements in the development of meaningful and reliable processes of teacher evaluation.

References

  1. Accomplished Californian Teachers. (2010). A Quality Teacher in Every Classroom: Creating a Teacher Evaluation System That Works for California. Stanford, CA: National Board Resource Centre. https://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/act-a-quality-teacher-in-every-classroom.pdf.
  2. Adams, T., Aguilar, E., Berg, E., Cismowski, L., et al. (2015). A Coherent System of Teacher Evaluation for Quality Teaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(17), 1–27.Google Scholar
  3. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher Quality, Opportunity Gap, and National Achievement in 46 Countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387.Google Scholar
  4. Asia Society. (2013). Improving Teacher Quality Around the World: The International Summit on the Teaching Profession: The 2013 International Summit on the Teaching Profession. New York: Asia Society. https://asiasociety.org/files/teachingsummit2013.pdf.
  5. Asia Society. (2018). New Challenges and Opportunities Facing the Teaching Profession in Public Education: The 2018 International Summit on the Teaching Profession. New York: Asia Society. https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/2018-international-summit-on-the-teaching-profession-edu-istp.pdf.
  6. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teaching. Melbourne and Canberra: AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/.
  7. Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The Effect of Teacher Misbehaviors on Teacher Credibility and Affect for the Teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–72.Google Scholar
  8. Behrstock-Sherratt, E., Bassett, K., Olson, D., & Jacques, C. (2014). From Good to Great: Exemplary Teachers Share Perspectives on Increasing Teacher Effectiveness Across the Career Continuum. Washington, DC: Center on Great Teachers and Leaders American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  9. Bridges, E. M. (1992). The Incompetent Teacher: Managerial Responses. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  10. Busler, J., Kirk, C., Keeley, J., & Buskist, W. (2017). What Constitutes Poor Teaching? A Preliminary Inquiry into the Misbehaviors of Not-So-Good Instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 44(4), 330–334.Google Scholar
  11. Ceulemans, C., Simons, M., & Struyf, E. (2012). Professional Standards for Teacher: How Do They Work? An Experiment in Tracing Standardisation In-Making in Teacher Education. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 20(1), 29–47.Google Scholar
  12. Chassin, Y. (2016). Enhance the Standing of the Teaching Profession by Firing Incompetent Teachers. Montreal: Montreal Economic Institute. http://www.iedm.org/files/note0116_en.pdf.
  13. Cherubini, L. (2010). A Grounded Theory of Prospective Teachers’ Meta-cognitive Process: Internalizing the Professional Standards of Teaching. The Teacher Educator, 45(2), 96–117.Google Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. (2011). Theoretical Perspectives, Methodological Approaches, and Trends in the Study of Expertise. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in Mathematics Instruction (pp. 17–39). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Coggshall, J. G., Rasmussen, C., Colton, A., Milton, J., & Jacques, C. (2012). Generating Teaching Effectiveness: The Role of Job-Embedded Professional Learning in Teacher Evaluation (Research and Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/doc/GeneratingTeachingEffectiveness.
  16. Cohen, R. M. (2009). What It Takes to Stick It Out: Two Veteran Inner-City Teachers After 25 Years. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 471–491.Google Scholar
  17. Connell, R. (2009). Good Teachers on Dangerous Ground: Towards a New View of Teacher Quality and Professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213–229.Google Scholar
  18. Covrig, D. M. (2001). Get Rid of Incompetent Teachers, Any Way You Can! Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 4(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One Piece of the Whole: Teacher Evaluation as Part of a Comprehensive System for Teaching and Learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
  21. Darling-Hammond, L., Jaquith, A., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. http://www.smmcta.com/uploads/9/9/4/2/9942134/evaluation_research_stanford_2012.pdf.
  22. Devine, D., Fahie, D., & McGillicuddy, D. (2013). What Is ‘Good’ Teaching? Teacher Beliefs and Practices About Their Teaching. Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 83–108.Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson, G. (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a Review of Teacher Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf.
  24. Downey, C., English, F. W., & Steffy, B. (2004). Three-Minute Walk-Through: Changing School Supervisory Practice One Teacher at a Time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. English, F. W. (2000). Psst! What Does One Call a Set of Non-empirical Beliefs Required to Be Accepted on Faith and Enforced by Authority? [Answer: A Religion, Aka the ISLLC Standards]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2), 159–167.Google Scholar
  26. European Union. (2007, December 12). Notices from European Union Institutions and Bodies. Council, Official Journal of the European Union, C300/07:1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42007X1212(01)&from=EN.
  27. Evetts, J. (2009). The Management of Professionalism. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing Teacher Professionalism: International Trends, Challenges and Ways Forward (pp. 19–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Fidler, B., & Atton, T. (1999). Poorly Performing Staff in Schools and How to Manage Them: Capability, Competence and Motivation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Forde, C. (2011). Approaches to Professional Learning: Coaching, Mentoring and Building Collaboration. In C. Forde & J. O’Brien (Eds.), Coaching and Mentoring: Developing Teachers and Leaders (pp. 17–31). Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Forde, C., McMahon, M. A., Hamilton, G., & Murray, R. (2017). Rethinking Professional Standards to Promote Professional Learning. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  31. Futernick, K. (2010). Incompetent Teachers or Dysfunctional Systems? Phi Delta Kappa, 92(2), 59–64.Google Scholar
  32. General Teaching Council Scotland. (2012). The Standards for Registration. Edinburgh: GTCS.Google Scholar
  33. Gronn, P. (2000). Designer Leadership: The Emerging Global Adoption of Preparation Standards. Journal of School Leadership, 12(5), 552–578.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.Google Scholar
  36. Hodgman, M. R. (2012). Boundaries and Applications: The Teacher Quality Debate in America. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 223–228.Google Scholar
  37. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.Google Scholar
  38. Ingvarson, L. (1998). Teaching Standards: Foundations for Professional Development Reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 1006–1031). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2006). Standards for Advanced Teaching: A Review of National and International Developments. Melbourne, VIC: ACER. http://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/2.
  40. Ingvarson, L., & Rowe, K. (2007, February 5). Conceptualising and Evaluating Teacher Quality: Substantive and Methodological Issues. Conference Paper presented at the Economics of Teacher Quality Conference, Australian National University. http://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/8.
  41. Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (1996). Standards for School Leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  42. Larsen, M. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Teacher Evaluation Policy Trends. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 292–305.Google Scholar
  43. Larsen, M. A. (2009). Stressful Hectic, Daunting: A Critical Policy Study of the Ontario Teacher Performance Appraisal System. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 95, 1–44.Google Scholar
  44. Larsen, M. A. (2010). Troubling the Discourse of Teacher Centrality: A Comparative Perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 207–231.Google Scholar
  45. Louden, W., & Wildy, H. (1999). Short Shrift to Long Lists: An Alternative Approach to the Development of Performance Standards for School Principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 99–121.Google Scholar
  46. Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional Standards for Teachers: A Case Study of Professional Learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
  48. Menter, I., Hulme, M., Elliot, D., Lewin, J., et al. (2010). Literature Review on Teacher Education in the 21st Century. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
  49. Mintrop, R., Ordenes, M., Coghlan, E., Pryor, L., & Madero, C. (2017). Teacher Evaluation, Pay for Performance, and Learning Around Instruction: Between Dissonant Incentives and Resonant Procedures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 3–46.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teaching and Teacher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  51. Mulcahy, D. (2011). Assembling the ‘Accomplished’ Teacher: The Performativity and Politics of Professional Teaching Standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(suppl), 94–113.Google Scholar
  52. Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the Foundations of ISLLC Standards and Addressing Concerns in the Academic Community. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 41(1), 154–191.Google Scholar
  53. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2016). What Teachers Know and Should Be Able to Do (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: National Board for Teaching Standards. http://accomplishedteacher.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NBPTS-What-Teachers-Should-Know-and-Be-Able-to-Do-.pdf.
  54. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2018). National Board Certification Overview. Arlington, VA: National Board for Teaching Standards. http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-certification/overview/.
  55. OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/teacherpolicy.
  56. OECD. (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf.
  57. OECD. (2013). TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
  58. OECD. (2016). Teaching and Learning International Survey: TALIS 2018 Survey Brochure. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS_2018_brochure_ENG.pdf.
  59. Ontario College of Teachers. (2006). Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Rev. ed.). Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Teachers. https://www.oct.ca/public/professional-standards/standards-of-practice.
  60. Range, B. G., Duncan, H. E., Scherz, S. D., & Haines, C. A. (2012). School Leaders’ Perceptions About Incompetent Teachers: Implications for Supervision and Evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 96(4), 302–322.Google Scholar
  61. Reeves, J. (2008). Between a Rock and a Hard Place? Curriculum for Excellence and the Quality Initiative in Scottish Schools. Scottish Educational Review, 40(2), 6–16.Google Scholar
  62. Reeves, J., Forde, C., O’Brien, J., Smith, P., & Tomlinson, H. (2002). Performance Management in Education Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  63. Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating Teachers’ Reflection and Feedback Asking: An Interplay of Self-Efficacy, Learning Goal Orientation, and Transformational Leadership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1154–1161.Google Scholar
  64. Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  66. Terhart, E. (1998). Formalised Codes of Ethics for Teachers: Between Professional Autonomy and Administrative Control. European Journal of Education, 33(4), 433–444.Google Scholar
  67. Torrance, D., & Forde, C. (2017). Redefining What It Means to Be a Teacher Through Professional Standards: Implications for Continuing Teacher Education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 110–126.Google Scholar
  68. Tutyens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to Activate Teachers Through Teacher Evaluation? School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(4), 509–530.Google Scholar
  69. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2006). Teachers and Educational Quality: Monitoring Global Needs for 2015. Montreal, QC: UNESCO-UIS. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/teachers-and-educational-quality-monitoring-global-needs-for-2015-en_0.pdf.
  70. Wragg, E. C., Chamberlin, R. P., & Haynes, G. S. (2000). Failing Teachers? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Wragg, E. C., Haynes, G. S., Wragg, C. M., & Chamberlin, R. P. (1999, September 2–5). Managing Incompetent Teachers. Conference Paper for the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001253.htm.
  72. Yariv, E. (2004). ‘Challenging’ Teachers: What Difficulties Do They Pose for Their Principals? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(2), 149–169.Google Scholar
  73. Yuan, K., Le, V. N., McCaffrey, D. F., Marsh, J. A., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., et al. (2013). Incentive Pay Programs Do Not Affect Teacher Motivation or Reported Practices: Results from Three Randomized Studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  74. Zepeda, S. J. (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning and Marginal Teachers on Formal Plans of Improvement. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 1(1), 25–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations