Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher Quality and Evaluation and the Development of Accomplished Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Teacher Quality, Professional Learning and Policy

  • 1221 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teaching. Melbourne and Canberra: AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bridges, E. M. (1992). The Incompetent Teacher: Managerial Responses. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covrig, D. M. (2001). Get Rid of Incompetent Teachers, Any Way You Can! Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership,4(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Fidler, B., & Atton, T. (1999). Poorly Performing Staff in Schools and How to Manage Them: Capability, Competence and Motivation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futernick, K. (2010). Incompetent Teachers or Dysfunctional Systems? Phi Delta Kappa,92(2), 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General Teaching Council Scotland. (2012). The Standards for Registration. Edinburgh: GTCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronn, P. (2000). Designer Leadership: The Emerging Global Adoption of Preparation Standards. Journal of School Leadership,12(5), 552–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research,77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgman, M. R. (2012). Boundaries and Applications: The Teacher Quality Debate in America. Journal of College Teaching and Learning,9(3), 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (1996). Standards for School Leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Teacher Evaluation Policy Trends. Australian Journal of Education,49(3), 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Larsen, M. A. (2010). Troubling the Discourse of Teacher Centrality: A Comparative Perspective. Journal of Education Policy,25(2), 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teaching and Teacher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, D. (2011). Assembling the ‘Accomplished’ Teacher: The Performativity and Politics of Professional Teaching Standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory,43(suppl), 94–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the Foundations of ISLLC Standards and Addressing Concerns in the Academic Community. Educational Administrative Quarterly,41(1), 154–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/teacherpolicy.

  • OECD. (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf.

  • OECD. (2013). TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.

  • OECD. (2016). Teaching and Learning International Survey: TALIS 2018 Survey Brochure. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS_2018_brochure_ENG.pdf.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, J., Forde, C., O’Brien, J., Smith, P., & Tomlinson, H. (2002). Performance Management in Education Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wragg, E. C., Chamberlin, R. P., & Haynes, G. S. (2000). Failing Teachers? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Yariv, E. (2004). ‘Challenging’ Teachers: What Difficulties Do They Pose for Their Principals? Educational Management Administration & Leadership,32(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christine Forde & Margery McMahon

Authors
  1. Christine Forde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margery McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Forde .

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Forde, C., McMahon, M. (2019). Teacher Quality and Evaluation and the Development of Accomplished Practice. In: Teacher Quality, Professional Learning and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53654-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53654-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53653-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53654-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation