Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 305–326 | Cite as

Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support

  • Mary Lynne Derrington
  • John W. Campbell
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Principal leadership is the key to successful implementation of mandated, high-accountability, teacher evaluation systems. Given the magnitude and complexity of change at the school level, understanding principals’ perceptions, responses, and concerns is essential for effective change and support during implementation. Thus, research that considers both principals’ concerns and their perceptions of implementation support contributes to both the scholarship and practice of leadership for change during accountability and reform. This multi-site, 3-year, qualitative study in a Southeastern state used the lens of Hall and Hord’s (Implementing change: patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson Education, Boston, 2015) stages of concern, from the concerns-based adoption model, to examine K-12 principal perspectives during implementation of new, rigorous, high accountability teacher evaluation policies. Findings from this study increase our understanding of the impact of implementation challenges and change processes on principals charged with leading externally mandated, high stakes innovations. When principals’ knowledge and management concerns are insufficiently addressed, it is difficult for them to move to full and successful implementation. Findings have implications for superintendents, state policy-makers, university faculty in administration preparation programs, and researchers focusing on teacher evaluation, change, and education reform. In addition, this study adds to the literature by examining suburban and rural perspectives, complementing research focused on urban schools and districts.

Keywords

Teacher evaluation Principal leadership CBAM Change Implementation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. E. (2010). Moving change: Evolutionary perspectives on educational change. In A. Hargreaves, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 65–84). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 292–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_policy_standards_2008.pdf
  6. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  8. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  9. Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2013). The changing conditions of teacher evaluation accountability measures. In B. G. Barnett, A. R. Shoho, & A. J. Bowers (Eds.), School and district leadership in an era of accountability (pp. 231–251). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (2008). Six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, G. E. (2013). Evaluating change processes: Assessing the extent of implementation (constructs, methods, and implications). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 264–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  18. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(5), 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Honig, M., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hord, S. M., Ruterford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Kertsen, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1–2), 47–67.Google Scholar
  25. Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S. (2007). District contributions to school leaders’ sense of efficacy: A quantitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 735–770.Google Scholar
  26. Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China; latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability., 25(3), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339–351.Google Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. O’Donnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K 12 curriculum intervention. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 223–231.Google Scholar
  33. 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, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Loyiso, J., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36(5), 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 The New Teacher Project website: http://widgeteffect.org.downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.City of Alcoa School DistrictAlcoaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options