New teachers’ perceptions of a standards-based performance appraisal system

  • Stephen C. O’Pry
  • Gary SchumacherEmail author


This study was conducted with first-year teachers. It provided insight into two key research questions: (1) What were the perceptions of new teachers regarding a standards-based performance appraisal system as it was implemented on their campus? (2) What factors contributed to the perceptions of new teachers regarding this system as it was implemented on their campus? This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was an online survey consisting of 24 Likert-type, 4-point items designed to elicit responses regarding the individual teachers’ experience with the standards-based evaluation. These survey scores were then totaled and ranked to determine the top and bottom scoring participants. Extreme scoring respondents participated in individual interviews regarding the specific contributing factors behind their perceptions of the evaluation in the second phase. Interview data were then read and phenomena were coded to develop broad themes and subthemes of information that occurred during each interview. These patterns were analyzed to reveal factors that contributed to the negative and positive perceptions. This study found that the value a teacher placed on the evaluation process was influenced by the principal. In addition, teachers who felt well-prepared and well-supported by their peers and their principal viewed the experience positively, and teachers also placed a higher value on the process when they felt they received meaningful and timely feedback and/or were provided opportunity for self-reflection. Finally, this study found that the relationship teachers have with principals is not always a factor in their perception of the standards-based appraisal process.


Appraisal system Standards-based Teacher evaluation Perceptions 


  1. Acheson, K. A., & Gall, D. (1987). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Aseltine, J., Faryniarz, J., & Rigazio-DiGilio, S. (2006). Supervision for learning: A performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement. Alexandria: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  3. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2002). Beginning teacher induction programs: the role of the principal. Clearing House, 75, 180–185.Google Scholar
  4. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2007). From first year to first rate: Principals guiding beginning teachers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  5. Caruso, J. C., & Cliff, N. (1997). Empirical size, coverage, and power of confidence intervals for Spearman’s rho. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(4), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student achievement? Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Conrad, C. F., Haworth, J. G., & Millar, S. B. (2001). A positioned subject approach to inquiry. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives (pp. 203–216). Boston: Pearson Custom.Google Scholar
  9. Cotton, K. (1995). Effective school practices: A research synthesis. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  11. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  12. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  13. Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative supervision on teachers’ trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and efficacy. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14, 351–379.Google Scholar
  14. Feeney, E. J. (2007). Quality feedback: the essential ingredient for teacher success. The Clearing House, 80(4), 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller, F. F., & Brown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Garman, N. (1982). The clinical approach to supervision. In T. J. Sergiovanni (Ed.), Supervision in teaching: The 1982 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 35–52). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  17. Garubo, R. C., & Rothstein, S. W. (1998). Supportive supervision in schools. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  18. Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  19. Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2009). Teacher evaluation as policy target: viable reform venue or just another tap dance? ERS Spectrum, 27(3), 31–40.Google Scholar
  20. 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. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  21. Holland, P. E., & Garman, N. (2001). Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16, 95–111.Google Scholar
  22. Holliday, C. O. (2005). Human connection. The Clearing House, 79(1), 21–23. Retrieved from Scholar
  23. Huckstadt, K. P. (2011). The impact of standards based teacher evaluation on instruction and professional practices in Iowa (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
  24. Kaplan, L., & Owings, W. (2003). The politics of teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappa, 84, 687–692.Google Scholar
  25. Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. T. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration, 45(1), 34–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littrell, P. C., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). The effects of principal support on special and general educators’ stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 15(5), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Tactics for thinking. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  29. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  30. Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G., III. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: a pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mosley, S. (2006). Assignment: define ‘highly qualified’, outline school board role. The Illinois School Board Journal, 74(4), 10–13.Google Scholar
  32. Nicholson, E. W., & Tracy, S. J. (2001). Principal’s influence on teacher’s attitude and implementation of curricular change. Education, 103(1), 68–73.Google Scholar
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  35. Ponticell, J. A., & Zepeda, S. J. (2004). Confronting well-learned lessons in supervision and evaluation. NAASP Bulletin, 88(639), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Schumacher, G. (2010). Complex teacher evaluation systems can produce negative perceptions. ERS Spectrum, 28(2), 27–36.Google Scholar
  38. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. 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: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2011). Professional Development and Appraisal System(PDAS). Retrieved from
  41. Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2001). Measure for measure: using student test results in teacher evaluation. American School Board Journal, 188(9), 34–37.Google Scholar
  42. Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  43. Ward, B. A. (1987). State and district structures to support initial year of teaching programs. In G. A. Griffin & S. Millies (Eds.), The first years of teaching (pp. 35–64). Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Houston-Clear LakeHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations