Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teacher evaluation’s relationship with instructional improvement is under-theorized in the literature. To address this gap, this paper uses a conceptual framework rooted in human, social, and material capital to analyze and synthesize findings from research conducted since 2009 on whether and under what conditions teacher evaluation stimulates change in teachers’ instruction. We find that teacher evaluation can facilitate instructional improvement if evaluators understand teaching and the teacher evaluation system and teachers and evaluators trust each other and have opportunities to develop social capital regarding instruction. In addition, adequate time and a userfriendly online data system appear to facilitate the use of teacher evaluation to stimulate changes in teachers’ practice. This paper thus presents a theoretical framework, rooted in theory and empirical research, that may prove useful to scholars and practitioners.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Arguments on both sides are described by Firestone (2014).

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–58). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, S., & Greene, J. (2011, February 24). In the United States merit pay plans for teachers are few and far between. Education Next.

  • Cherasaro, T. L., Brodersen, R. M., Reale, M. L., & Yanoski, D. C. (2016). Teachers’ responses to feedback from evaluators: What feedback characteristics matter? REL 2017-190. Naperville: Regional Educational Laboratory Central.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The common core state standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement: Organizations and institutions: Sociological and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure), S120.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. (2011). District of columbia public schools: Defining instructional expectations and aligning accountability and support. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. (2012a). Putting the pieces in place: Charlotte-mecklenburg public schools’ teacher evaluation system. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. (2012b). Building it together: The design and implementation of Hillsborough County Public Schools’ teacher evaluation system. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrington, M. L. (2016). Implementing teacher evaluation: Lattice of leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, E. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the impact of an evaluation system on classroom instructional practices Retrieved 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 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC (pp. 1–34).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 838–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C. D., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzalez, R., Woulfin, S., et al. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W., & Donaldson, M. L. (2019). Teacher evaluation as high stakes data use: What recent research suggests. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability., 31(3), 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M. A., & Derrington, M. L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: Lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T. G. (2018). Pointing teachers in the wrong direction: Understanding Louisiana elementary teachers’ use of Compass high-stakes teacher evaluation data. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30, 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 3, 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1086/512741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., Piyaman, P., & Viseshsiri, P. (2017). Assessing the effects of learning-centered leadership on teacher professional learning in Thailand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, R. R., & Clifford, M. A. (2006). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 578–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9060-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingersoll, R. M., & Collins, G. J. (2017). Accountability and control in American schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1205142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “ Lost At Sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), n1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(2), 179–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Naperville: Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. H., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munger, M. S. (2012). Shared responsibility for teacher quality: How do principals respond to peer assistance and review? Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • Nelson, B. S. (2010). How elementary school principals with different leadership content knowledge profiles support teachers’ mathematics instruction. New England Mathematics Journal, 42, 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12456700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013a). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013b). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Coordination and Development. (2019). Education at a glance 2019. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/teachers/teachinghours.htm .

  • Papay, J. P., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs. Educational Policy, 26(5), 696–729.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17720978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2015). Intra- and interschool interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110. https://doi.org/10.1086/683292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, M. D., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Carver, C. L. (2015). Improving instructional leadership through the development of leadership content knowledge: The case of principal learning in algebra. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115569353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L., McMahon, A., & Thomas, S. (2006). Identifying and leading effective professional learning communities.Journal of School. Leadership, 16(5), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460601600511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Supovitz, J. A. (2012). Getting at student understanding—The key to teachers’ use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), n11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNTP, & Indiana Department of Education. (2012). The Indiana evaluation pilot: Mid-year report and recommendations. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripamer, A. J., Reeves, A. G., & Meinz, E. J. (2014). Teacher perceptions of teacher evaluations in the Fort Zumwalt school district. NCPEA Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 1(1), 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2012). Teacher evaluation in practice: a (missed) opportunity for teachers’ professional development?. In International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA

    Morgaen L. Donaldson

  2. Emeritus, Rutgers University, Brunswick, USA

    William Firestone

Authors
  1. Morgaen L. Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Firestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgaen L. Donaldson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix A

Databases searched

ERIC, Academic Search Premier, Agricola, Alternative Press Index, Alternative Press Index Archive, America: History & Life, American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 3, American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 1, American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 2, American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 4, American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 5, American Doctoral Dissertations, Anthropology Plus, Art Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), Art Index Retrospective (H.W. Wilson), Arte Público Hispanic Historical Collection: Series 1, Arte Público Hispanic Historical Collection: Series 2, Associated Press Images Collection, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Biography Reference Bank (H.W. Wilson), Book Collection Nonfiction: Elementary School Edition, Book Collection Nonfiction: High School Edition, Book Collection Nonfiction: Middle School Edition, Business Source Complete, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, CINAHL with Full Text, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Computer Source, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EconLit, European Views of the Americas: 1493 to 1750, Film & Television Literature Index, Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, GeoRef, GeoRef In Process, GreenFILE, Historical Abstracts with Full Text, History Reference Center, iCONN eAudio & eBooks, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Jewish Studies Source, L’Année philologique, Legal Information Reference Center, Legal Source, LGBT Life with Full Text, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, MainFile, MAS Ultra - School Edition, MasterFILE Premier, MathSciNet via EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, Middle Search Plus, MLA Directory of Periodicals, MLA International. Bibliography, Music Index, Newspaper Source Plus, Newswires, Philosopher’s Index, Political Science Complete, Primary Search, Professional Development Collection, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Public Affairs Index, Readers’ Guide Retrospective: 1890-1982 (H.W. Wilson), Referencia Latina, Regional Business News, Religion and Philosophy Collection, RILM Abstracts of Music Literature (1967 to Present only), RIPM - Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals, Science Reference Center, Social Work Abstracts, SocINDEX with Full Text, SPORTDiscus, Teacher Reference Center, The Nation Archive Premium Edition, TOPICsearch, Web News, Women’s Studies International, World Politics Review

Appendix B

Analytic sample of articles on teacher evaluation

  1. 1.

    Bogart, C. D. (2013). Teacher Evaluation and Classroom Practice: Teacher Perceptions in Northeast Tennessee. Retrieved from ProQuest LLC (Accession Number: ED555811)

  2. 2.

    Callahan, K., & Sadeghi, L. (2015). Teacher Perceptions of the Value of Teacher Evaluations: New Jersey’s ACHIEVE NJ. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(1), 46–59.

  3. 3.

    Cavanna, J. M. (2016, January 1). Mathematics Teachers’ Data Use in Practice: Considering Accountability, Action Research, and Agency. Proquest ED 571909.

  4. 4.

    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.

  5. 5.

    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.

  6. 6.

    Curtis, R., (2012). Putting the Pieces in Place: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools’ Teacher Evaluation System. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

  7. 7.

    Curtis, R., (2011). District of Columbia public schools: Defining instructional expectations and aligning accountability and support. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

  8. 8.

    Curtis, R., (2012). Building It Together: The Design and Implementation of Hillsborough County Public Schools’ Teacher Evaluation System. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

    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, 36 1–11.

  11. 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.

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

    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.

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

    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.

  16. 16.

    Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin , S. (2018). From Tinkering to Going “Rogue”: How Principals Use Agency When Enacting New Teacher Evaluation Systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531–556.

  17. 17.

    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.

  18. 18.

    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.

  19. 19.

    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.

  20. 20.

    Flores, M. A., & Derrington, M. L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: Lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431.

  21. 21.

    Ford, T. G. (2018). Pointing teachers in the wrong direction: Understanding Louisiana elementary teachers’ use of Compass high-stakes teacher evaluation data. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30, 251–283.

  22. 22.

    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.

  23. 23.

    Gardinarova-Kirova, D. (2016). Meaning-making as a critical process in educational reform implementation: Insights from the development of standards-based student growth objectives (Ph.D.). Available from Proquest 10478864

  24. 24.

    Hampton, S. D. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of the Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 77,

  25. 25.

    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.

  26. 26.

    Jackson, J. K. (2011). School leadership that develops teachers’ instructional capacity.

  27. 27.

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

  28. 28.

    Johnson, S. M., & Fiarman, S. E. (2012). The Potential of Peer Review. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 20–25.

  29. 29.

    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.

  30. 30.

    Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(2), 179–209.

  31. 31.

    Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2015). Teacher Evaluation, Performance-Related Pay, and Constructivist Instruction. Educational Policy, 29(2), 375–401.

  32. 32.

    Makkonen, R., Tejwani, J., Rodriguez, F. J (2015). A Descriptive Study of the Pilot Implementation of Student Learning Objectives in Arizona and Utah. WestEd, & National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. REL 2016-102.

  33. 33.

    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.

  34. 34.

    Maslow, V. J., & Kelley, C. J. (2012). Does Evaluation Advance Teaching Practice? The Effects of Performance Evaluation on Teaching Quality and System Change in Large Diverse High Schools. Journal Of School Leadership, 22(3), 600–632.

  35. 35.

    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.

  36. 36.

    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.

  37. 37.

    Meadows, J. R. (2016). More than accountability: Understanding teacher perceptions of evaluation, observation, and feedback in grades 3-8 mathematics instruction.

  38. 38.

    Moran, R. R. (2017). The Impact of a High Stakes Teacher Evaluation System: Educator Perspectives on Accountability. Educational Studies: Journal of The American Educational Studies Association, 53(2), 178–193.

  39. 39.

    Moss, J. T. (2016). The Danielson model of teacher evaluation: Exploring teacher perceptions concerning its value in shaping and improving instructional practice.

  40. 40.

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

  41. 41.

    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.

  42. 42.

    Pollins, T. A. (2015). Student learning objectives: A Rhode Island case study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 76.

  43. 43.

    Pressley, T. F. (2016). Teachers’ view of the role VAM plays in their work in the school and school community.

  44. 44.

    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.

  45. 45.

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

  46. 46.

    Ritter, G. W., & Barnett, J. H. (2016). Learning on the job. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 48.

  47. 47.

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

  48. 48.

    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.

  49. 49.

    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.

  50. 50.

    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.

  51. 51.

    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.

  52. 52.

    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.

  53. 53.

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

  54. 54.

    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.

  55. 55.

    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.

  56. 56.

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

  57. 57.

    TNTP. (2012). The Indiana Evaluation Pilot: Mid-Year Report and Recommendations. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education

  58. 58.

    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.

  59. 59.

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

  60. 60.

    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.

  61. 61.

    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.

  62. 62.

    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. research brief. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

  63. 63.

    Winslow, R. A. (2016). Administrative feedback following classroom observations as part of a Danielson-based teacher evaluation system: Teacher and administrator perceptions.

  64. 64.

    Wydo, D. A. (2016, January 1). A Grounded Theory Exploration of the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System and Its Effects on Teaching Practices and Teacher Leadership.

  65. 65.

    Zesiger, J. W. (2016). Transforming educator instructional practice in Pennsylvania secondary schools through the addition of teacher-specific student achievement data as a component of teacher evaluation. Proquest ISBN 9781339153605.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Donaldson, M.L., Firestone, W. Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital. J Educ Change 22, 501–534 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09405-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09405-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation