This study investigated teacher evaluation practices used in Indiana as the state was implementing a mandated teacher evaluation system (Public Law 90) and early reporting of subsequent teacher effectiveness results by the Indiana Department of Education. The study surveyed public school administrators: (a) superintendents, (b) special education directors, and (c) K-12 building principals via e-mail using Qualtrics. A total of 2,444 administrators were invited to participate with a 28% return rate. Summative and formative teacher evaluation methods were used, but emergent methods (as mandated in PL 90) were not widely used. Recommendations for a more unified approach to teacher evaluation are emphasized.
AbrutynL. S. (2006). The most important data. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 54–57.
2.
American Educational Research Association. (2015). AERA statement on use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 448–452.doi:10.3102/0013189X15618385
3.
BushmanJ. (2006). Teachers as walk-through partners. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 58–61.
4.
Center on Education Policy. (2009). Has progress been made in raising achievement for students with disabilities?Washington, DC: Author.
5.
ColeSHardyMRoganPEckesS. (2013). Indiana’s teacher evaluation legislation: Implications and challenges for policy, higher education and professional development. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
6.
DanielsonC. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
7.
DanielsonC. (2010). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35–39.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation?Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132–137.doi:10.3102/0013189X15575346
DowneyC. JSteffyB. EEnglishF. WFraseL. EPostonW. K. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
FurtwenglerC. (1995). State actions for personnel evaluation: Analysis of reform policies, 1983–1992. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(4), 27.
12.
GallagherH. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement?Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79–107.doi:10.1207/s15327930pje7904_5
13.
GayL. RAirasianP. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
14.
GoldhaberD. (2010). When the stakes are high, can we rely on value-added? Exploring the use of value-added models to inform teacher workforce decisions. Washington, DC: The Center for American Progress.
15.
GoldsteinJ. (2007). Debunking the fear of peer review: Combining supervision and evaluation and living to tell about it. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(4), 235–252.doi:10.1007/s11092-006-9022-3
16.
GuarinoC. MReckaseM. DWooldridgeJ. M. (2012). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted? Working paper #18. The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. Retrieved from www.education.msu.edu/epc
17.
HaziH. MArredondo RucinskiD. (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.doi:10.14507/epaa.v17n5.2009
18.
HoldheideL. (2013). Inclusive design: Building educator evaluation systems that support students with disabilities (Revised Edition). Washington, DC: The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders at American Institutes for Research (AIR).
19.
HoldheideL. RBrowerDWarrenSBuzickHJonesN. (2012). Using student growth to evaluate educators of students with disabilities: Issues, challenges, and next steps. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
20.
HoldheideL. RGoeLCroftAReschlyD. J. (2010). Challenges in evaluating special education teachers and English language learner specialists. Research & Policy Brief. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
21.
Indiana Department of Education. (2011). Changing the evaluation process in Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org/
22.
Indiana Department of Education. (2012). Rise Indiana teacher effectiveness rubric. Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org/
Indiana Department of Education. (2014b). 2013–14 staff performance evaluation results (13-14 evaluation results for state Board of Education). Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/evaluations
JohnsonESemmelrothC. (2014). Special education teacher evaluation: Why it matters, what makes it challenging, and how to address these challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 71–82.
27.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.
28.
JonesN. DBrownellM. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112–124.doi:10.1177/1534508413514103
MarzanoR. JPollockJ. E. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
MathersCOliviaMLaineS. W. M. (2008). Improving instruction through effective teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts. TQ Research & Policy Brief. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
33.
National Governors Association. (2011). Governors play role in preparing principals to conduct teacher evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home.html
NewtonX. ADarling-HammondLHaertelEThomasE. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). doi:10.14507/epaa.v18n23.2010
36.
Partnership for Learning. (2010). The impact of effective teachers and principals. Retrieved from www.partnership4learning.org
37.
PophamW. J. (2013). On serving two masters: Formative and summative teacher evaluation. Principal Leadership, 13(7), 18–22.
RitterG. WJensenN. C. (2010). The delicate task of developing an attractive merit pay plan for teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 32–37.doi:10.1177/003172171009100807
SparksS. D. (2012). Caution urged in using ‘value added’ evaluations: Scholars say districts must be more careful. Education Week, 32(10), 6.
42.
SteinbrecherTSeligJCosbeyJThorstensenB. (2014). Evaluating special educator effectiveness: Addressing issues inherent to value-added modeling. Exceptional Children, 80(3), 323–336.
43.
TuytensMDevosG. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader?Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 891–899.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.02.004
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea
45.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top (Education Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PUB. L. No. 111-5. Stat, 115(2009).
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act.
WoolfS. (2014). Special education professional standards: How important are they in the context of teacher performance evaluation?Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1–15.
