High-stakes teacher evaluation policy: US principals’ perspectives and variations in practice

References

• Barzanò, G., & Grimaldi, E. (2013). Discourses of merit: The hot potato of teacher evaluation in Italy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 767–791.10.1080/02680939.2013.774439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berliner, D., & Glass, G. V. (2014). Chipping away: Reforms that don’t make a difference. Educational Leadership, 71(9), 28–33.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). The RAND change agent study (Vols. 1–8). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Instructional leadership policy standards: ISSLC 2008. Retrieved from Council of Chief State School Officers website: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards38256_ISLLC_2008.html
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Danielson, C., & McReal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The “co-construction” of implementation in Comprehensive School Reform. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 105–123). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• 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), 351–368.10.1007/s11092-012-9153-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores, M., & Derrington, M. L. (2015). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: Lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2015.1094144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2013). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44, 96–104. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holloway-Libell, J., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Collins, C. (2012). All hat and no cattle. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 65–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 1–23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Honig, M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774.10.1177/0013161X12443258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.10.3102/0013189X033008016
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L. (2014, February 10). Tennessee teachers push back on evaluation process. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/tennessee-teachers-evaluation_n_4760096.html
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Mango, C. S. (2013). Comparative perspectives on international school leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design.
   Google Scholar
• McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159.10.1177/0895904811425911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 209–228). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2013). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ovando, M. N., & Ramirez, A. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(1–2), 85–110.10.1007/s11092-007-9048-1
   Google Scholar
• Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477–494.10.1080/13632430903162541
   Google Scholar
• Popham, J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 269–273.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, J. (2013). Can classroom assessments of student growth be credibly used to evaluate teachers? English Journal, 103(1), 34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, J., & DeSander, M. (2014). Will the courts save teachers? Educational Leadership, 71(5), 55–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Retallick, J., & Fink, D. (2002). Framing leadership: Contributions and impediments to educational change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(2), 91–104.10.1080/13603120110112864
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1–26. doi:10.1080/15700760903026748
   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), 635–674.10.1177/0013161X08321509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. A., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals “Bridge and Buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed‐methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211–242.10.1086/649492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time. Walnut Creek, CA: Altimira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seashore Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665.10.1108/09578231211249853
   Google Scholar
• Smylie, M. A., & Evans, A. E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 187–208). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., & Burch, P. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.10.1177/089590402237311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.10.3102/0013189X030003023
   Google Scholar
• Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448.10.3102/01623737025004423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 378–396.10.3102/0013189X17726752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1997). The problem of policy implementation: The case of performance appraisal. School Leadership and Management, 17(3), 333–346.10.1080/13632439769890
   Google Scholar
• Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (in this volume). Teacher evaluation policy as perceived by school principals: The case of Flanders (Belgium). Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf
   Google Scholar