Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system

Educational Administration Quarterly

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 34-70

  Kimball, Steven M ^a   Milanowski, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Empirical paper; School leadership; Teacher evaluation; Teaching standards; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 59249085666     PISSN: 0013161X     EISSN: 15523519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08327549     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bernardin, H.J., & Cardy, R.L. (1982). Appraisal accuracy: The ability and motivation to remember the past. Public Personnel Management, 11 (4). 352-357.
2. Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18 (2). 321-352.
3. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41 (1). 1069-1077.
4. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
5. Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R., & Williams, R.E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1). 130-135.
6. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
7. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
8. DeCotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 635-646.
9. DeNisi, A.S., Cafferty, T.P., & Meglino, B.M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360-396.
10. Ellett, C.D. (1997). Classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning. In J. Stronge, Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 107-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Ellett, C.D., Annunziata, J., & Schiavone, S. (2002). Web-based support for teacher evaluation and professional growth: The Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16 (1). 63-74.
12. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Freeberg, N.E. (1969). Relevance of rater-ratee acquaintance in the validity and reliability of ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 518-524.
14. Grey, R.J., & Kipness, D. (1976). Untangling the performance appraisal dilemma: The influence of perceived organizational context on evaluative processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 329-335.
15. Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In W. Hay & C. Miskel (Ed.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement. a volume in research and theory in educational administration (Vol. 3, pp. 153-188.). Greenwich, CT: George F. Johnson.
16. Hedge, J.W., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1988). Improving the accuracy of performance evaluations: Comparison of three methods of performance appraiser training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (1). 68-73.
17. Heneman, H.G., III, Milanowski, A., Kimball, S.M., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay (CPRE Policy Brief, RB-45). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
18. 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. 1-24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
19. Ivancevich, J.M. (1983). Contrast effects in performance evaluation and reward practices. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (3). 465-476.
20. Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2006). When principals rate teachers. Education Next, 6 (2). 58-64.
21. Judge, T.A., & Ferris, G.R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1). 80-105.
22. Kimball, S.M. (2001). Innovations in teacher evaluation: Case studies of two school districts with teacher evaluation systems based on the Framework for Teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing.
23. Kimball, S.M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16 (4). 241-268.
24. Kimball, S.M., White, B., Milanowski, A.T., & Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4). 54-78.
25. Klein, S.J. (1998). Standards for teacher tests. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12 (2). 123-138.
26. Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
27. Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87 (1). 72-107.
28. Louis, K.M., & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
29. Martin, S.L., & Klimoski, R.J. (1990). Use of verbal protocols to trace cognitions associated with self- and supervisor evaluations of performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 46 (1). 135-154.
30. Medley, D.M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80 (4). 242-247.
31. Milanowski, A.T. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4). 33-53.
32. Milanowski, A.T., Kimball, S.M., & Odden, A.R. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and links to learning. In R. Rubenstein et al. (Eds.), Measuring school performance & efficiency: Implications for practice and research. Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 133-188). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
33. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Napier, N.K., & Latham, G.P. (1986). Outcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 39, 827-837.
36. Nelson, B.S., & Sassi, A. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high-quality learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
37. Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practice (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1). 1-22.
39. Smith, D.E. (1986). Training programs for performance appraisal: A review. Academy of Management Review, 11 (1). 22-40.
40. Smither, J.W., Barry, S.R., & Reilly, R.R. (1989). An investigation of the validity of expert true score estimates in appraisal research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1). 143-151.
41. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Stodolsky, S.S. (1990). Classroom observation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 175-190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46., pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Tziner, A., Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N. (2001). Relationship between attitudes toward organizations and performance appraisal systems and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (3). 226-239.
45. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Teacher incentive fund, notice inviting applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2006-2/ 050106e.html
46. Woehr, D.J., & Huffcutt, A.I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.