Teacher Evaluation Policy Tools: Principals’ Selective Use in Instructional Leadership

References

• 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
• Butler, T. A. (2015). School leadership in the 21st century: Leading in the age of reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(5), 593–602. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2014.956524
   Google Scholar
• Corden, A., & Millar, J. (2007). Qualitative longitudinal research for social policy: Introduction to themed section. Social Policy and Society, 6(4), 529–532. doi:10.1017/S1474746407003867
   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, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Derrington, M. L. (2014). Teacher evaluation initial policy implementation: Principal and superintendent perceptions. Planning and Changing, 45(1/2), 120–137.
   Google Scholar
• Derrington, M. L. (2016). Implementing teacher evaluation: Lattice of leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(2), 181–199. doi:10.1177/1942775116658689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. (2013). The changing conditions of instructional leadership: Principal perceptions of teacher evaluation accountability mandates. In B. G. Barnett, A. R. Shoho, & A. J. Bowers (Eds.), International research on school leadership: Vol. 4. School and district leadership in an era of accountability (pp. 231–251). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Galston, W. A. (2005). The politics of polarization: Educational debates in the United States. In S. Fuhrman, & M. Lazerson (Eds.), The public schools (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   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
• Grissom, J. A., & Herrington, C. D. (2012). Struggling for coherence and control: The new politics of intergovernmental relations in education. Educational Policy, 26(1), 3–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henig, J. (2001). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2011). Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century of federal efforts to improve America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   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, NY: 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. doi: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. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008016
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   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
• Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp, M. D., & Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: Challenge for urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666–694. doi:10.1108/09578231211249862
   Google Scholar
• Koyama, J. (2013). Principals as bricoleurs: Making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. doi:10.177/0013161X13492796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. doi:10.1108/09578231211249853
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, J. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (2013). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42, 276–283. doi:10.3102/0013189X13492193
   Web of Science ®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
• McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi:10.3102/01623737009002133
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. In Odden, A. R. (Ed.) Educational policy implementation (pp. 157–184). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159. doi: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, NY: 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 (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. H. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29(5), 477–494. doi: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. doi:10.1007/BF00123822
   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, CA: University of California Press.
   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
• Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. A., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals bridge and buffer’ the new demands of teacher quality accountability: A mixed methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211–242. doi:10.1086/649492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SCORE. (2012). Supporting effective teaching in Tennessee: Listening and gathering feedback on Tennessee’s teacher evaluations. Retrieved from http://tnscore.org/research-reports/additional-resources/
   Google Scholar
• Smrekar, C., & Crowson, R. L. (2015). Localism rediscovered: Toward new political understandings in school district governance. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 1–8. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2015.988514
   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, NY: 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. doi:10.1177/089590402237311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. doi:10.1080/0022027032000106726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448. doi:10.3102/01623737025004423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tennessee Department of Education. (2011b). Teacher evaluation in Tennessee: A report on year 1 implementation. Retrieved from www.tn.gov/education/doc/yr_1_tchr_eval_rpt.pdf
   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
• Winkler, A. M., Scull, J., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2012). How strong are U.S. teacher unions? A state-by-state comparison. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/how-strong-are-us-teacher-unions.html
   Google Scholar