References
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [ARRA], 123 Stat. §§ 111-5 (2009). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/pdf/PLAW-111publ5.pdf
- Bireda, S. (2010). Devil in the details: An analysis of state teacher dismissal laws [Research report]. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/06/pdf/sabateacherdismissal_exec_summ.pdf
- Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99353003
- Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02381002
- Bridges, E. M., & Groves, B. R. (1999). The macro- and micropolitics of personnel evaluation: A framework. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 321–337. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008182215705
- Brown, K. S., & White, B. R. (2010). The state of leadership: Public school principals in Illinois [Policy research]. Illinois Education Research Council. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511378.pdf
- Conley, S., & Glasman, N. S. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807311297
- Copland, M. A., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework for reflection, planning, and action. ASCD.
- Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
- Danielson, C. (2010). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35–39. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec10/vol68/num04/Evaluations-That-Help-Teachers-Learn.aspx
- Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press.
- DeMitchell, T. A. (2020). Teachers and their unions: Labor relations in uncertain times. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Donaldson, M., & Mavrogordato, M. (2018). Principals and teacher evaluation: The cognitive, relational, and organizational dimensions of working with low-performing teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(6), 586–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2017-0100
- Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Teacher evaluation reform: Policy lessons for school principals. Principal’s Research Review, 9(5), 1–8. https://i-share-gsu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CARLI_GSU/chfh4d/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A391310805
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718784205
- Drake, T. A., Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Cannata, M., Neumerski, C., Rubin, M., & Schuermann, P. (2016). Development or dismissal? Exploring principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data. In J. A. Grissom & P. A. Young (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 116–130). Teachers College Press.
- Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973522
- Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one:” Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518–550. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290641
- Haefele, D. L. (1993). Evaluating teachers: A call for change. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972346
- Hallinger, P., Heck, R., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, & Accountability, 26(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5
- Hazi, H. M., & Rucinski, D. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v17n5.2009
- Hill, H. C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65–82). State University of New York Press.
- Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). State University of New York.
- Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of President Obama’s Race to the Top. Education Next, 15(4), 58–66. https://www.educationnext.org/results-president-obama-race-to-the-top-reform/
- Illinois State Board of Education. (2015). ISBE non-regulatory guidance on PERA and SB7. https://www.isbe.net/Documents/pera_guidance.pdf
- Illinois State Board of Education. (2017a). Directory of educational entities [Data file]. https://www.isbe.net/_layouts/Download.aspx?SourceUrl=/Documents/dir_ed_entities.xls
- Illinois State Board of Education. (2017b). Illinois report card 2016-2017. https://www.illinoisreportcard.com
- Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppesco, S. (2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago’s REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575517
- Johnson, S. M. (1984). Teacher unions in schools. Temple University Press.
- Kerchner, C. T., & Koppich, J. E. (2007). Negotiating what matters most: Collective bargaining and student achievement. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/512736
- Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08327549
- Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.). McCutchan.
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445
- Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting The widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 234–249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17718797
- Lane, J. L. (2020). Maintaining the frame: Using frame analysis to explain teacher evaluation policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 5–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219848689
- Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: Schools leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 29(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0
- London, H. N. (1998). An analysis of hearing officer decisions in cases of tenured teacher dismissal in Illinois from 1985-1994 [Doctoral dissertation]. Northern Illinois University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (ProQuest No. 304463588).
- Malen, B. (2006). Revisiting policy implementation as a political phenomenon: The case of reconstitution policies. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 83–104). State University of New York Press.
- Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. ASCD.
- May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332–352. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383411
- Mead, S., Rotherham, A., & Brown, R. (2012). The hangover: Thinking about the unintended consequences of the nation’s teacher evaluation binge [Special report]. American Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei.org/publication/the-hangover-thinking-about-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-nations-teacher-evaluation-binge/
- Mette, I. M., Range, B. G., Anderson, J., Hvidston, D. J., Nieuwenhuizen, L., & Doty, J. (2017). The wicked problem of the intersection between supervision and evaluation. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(3), 709–724. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/185
- National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Government Printing Office.
- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB], 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 (West 2002). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf
- Palinkas, L. A., Horowitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
- Phillips, V. (2011). What makes a good teacher? (Stephanie Hirsh, Interviewer). Journal of Staff Development, 32(6), 18–22. https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hirsh326.pdf
- Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Regenstein, E. (2011). Illinois: The new leader in education reform? [Policy report]. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/07/pdf/illinois_education.pdf
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717690605
- Robinson, O. G. (2013). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Quantitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
- Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Combining classroom observations and value added for the evaluation and professional development of teachers. In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 205–233). Jossey-Bass.
- Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
- Tracy, S. J. (1995). How historical concepts of supervision relate to supervisory practices today. The Clearing House, 68(5), 320–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1995.9957261
- Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project. http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf
- White, M. C. (2018). Rater performance standards for classroom observation instruments. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 492–501. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18785623
- Wieczorek, D., Clark, D., & Theoharis, G. (2018). Principals’ perspectives of a Race to the Top-style teacher evaluation system. Journal of School Leadership, 28(5), 566–595. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846180280050