Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher evaluation in Illinois: school leaders’ perceptions and practices

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the current study is to assess school leaders’ perceptions and practices in the context of a new policy that emphasizes teacher evaluation. The study draws from survey data of 606 K-12 school leaders in the USA in a state implementing a new teacher evaluation model under Race to the Top. Findings illustrate that school leaders spent significant time on teacher evaluation. Some felt this was a good investment of time (e.g., rich conversations with teachers), increasing the ability for evaluations to improve instruction. Most, however, perceived the time demands as a cost (e.g., spending longer hours on the job, delegating more tasks to others). School leaders felt very confident in their ability to conduct observations and provide feedback to teachers. The opposite was found for student achievement data. Administrators’ reported preparedness, confidence, and beliefs suggest that barriers exist to using student achievement data to evaluate teachers. Findings suggest that school leaders need resources to build capacity, particularly in accommodating the new time demands of teacher evaluation. Administrators could benefit from professional development that addresses the use and value of student achievement if this measure continues to be a substantial component in teacher evaluation models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Feedback from principals (as reported by teachers in lower secondary schools) was most common in Bulgaria (94.5%), Poland (93%), Romania (89%), USA (85%), and Alberta (Canada) (81%), while it was reported as less common in Iceland (21%), Spain (22%), Australia (27%), Netherlands (27%), and Korea (30%). Feedback from teachers was more frequently reported by teachers in Korea (84%), Denmark (58%), Latvia (58%), Netherlands (57%), and Norway (57%), and less common in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) (20%), Flanders (Belgium) (20%), France (21%), Chile (23%), and Iceland (24%) (OECD 2014b).

  2. Many subject areas are not tested, thus states must decide upon (and sometimes create) the measures that will be used in non-tested subjects or grades. One reason why student achievement data are problematic is because some measures (value-added measures), when used well, require multiple years of data (Loeb and Candelaria 2012) to help identify performance differences among teachers (Ballou 2005; Goldhaber and Hansen 2008; Lipscomb et al. 2010) and decrease the effects of outliers (McCaffrey et al. 2009). However, in many cases, individual value-added scores cannot be calculated for teachers (TDOE First to the Top, 2012). See Amrein-Beardsley 2014, The Carnegie Knowledge Network (www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org), and Harris 2011 for extensive reviews of value-added measures.

  3. According to 2011–2012 data from the Schools and Staffing survey, participants in the current study are fairly representative of US school principals in terms of gender, ethnicity, and school level; however, participants in the study were more likely to hold a master’s degree and possess, on average, more years of experience than the average US school principal. This may be due, in part, to a study sample that also included superintendents and those in other administrative roles. Demographic data from the 2011–2012 school year reveal that 52% of US school principals are female, 81.8% identify as Caucasian/white, 43% are principals in elementary schools, 59% hold a master’s degree as the highest degree, and they possess 4.9 years of experience in their current school, on average (USDOE 2013).

References

  • Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lund, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teaching in secondary school classrooms: predicting student achievement with the CLASS-S. School Psychology Review, 42, 76–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, D. (2005). Value-added assessment: Lessons from Tennessee. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), Valueadded models in education: theory and application (pp. 272–297). Maple Grove: JAM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 62–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: combining high quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf.

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Retrieved from www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf.

  • Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). Myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools: the real crisis in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Putting growth and value-added models on the map: a national overview. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danielson Group. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (2013 edn). Retrieved from http://www.danielsongroup.org/userfiles/files/downloads/2013EvaluationInstrument.pdf.

  • Daresh, J. C. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: professional promise or predictable problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495–517. doi:10.1177/0013161X04267114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Want to close the achievement gap? Close the teaching gap. American Educator, 14–18.

  • Dembélé, M., & Schwille, J. (2006). Can the global trend toward accountability be reconciled with ideals of teacher empowerment?: theory and practice in Guinea. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4–5), 302–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). Japanese lesson study: teacher professional development through communities of inquiry. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, S., & Ydesen, C. (2014). Towards a comparative and international history of school testing and accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(115–121), 1–8. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22.1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffet, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. New York: Public Agenda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frase, L. E., & Streshley, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujii, T. (2014). Implementing Japanese lesson study in foreign countries: misconceptions revealed. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 16(1), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatter, R. (2012). Persistent preoccupations: the rise and rise of school autonomy and accountability in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(5), 559–575. doi:10.1177/1741143212451171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2005). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2008). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Research Brief. Retrieved from http://www.cedr.us/papers/assessing_the_potential.pdf.

  • Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-centered leadership: connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldring, E. B., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T. A., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., & Schuermann, P. (2014) Principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data for talent management decisions. Retrieved from http://www.principaldatause.org/assets/files/reports/Summary-Report-201405.pdf.

  • Good, T. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2015). Rating teachers cheaper, faster, and better: no so fast [Peer commentary on the paper, “Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster, and cheaper? Evidence of innovating teacher observation systems” by J. Gargani & M. Strong]. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 288–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: how perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1091–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Cohen, J., Ronfeldt, M., & Brown, L. (2014). The test matters: the relationship between classroom observation scores and teacher value-added on multiple types of assessments. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. W., & Sanders, T. (2001). Who will lead the public schools? The New York Times, p. 46.

  • Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: what every educator needs to know. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N., Ingle, W. K., & Rutledge, S. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: a comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 73–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). What makes for a good teacher and who can tell? CALDER Working Paper No. 30. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001431-what-makes-for-a-good-teacher.pdf?RSSFeed=UI_EducationPolicyCenter.xml.

  • Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-45). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/RB45.pdf.

  • Herlihy, C., Karger, E., Pollard, C., Hill, H., Kraft, M. A., Williams, M., & Howard, S. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, R., Roberts, M., & Menchaca, V. (2012). Redesigning a principal preparation program: a continuous improvement model. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(3), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. (2006). Looking beyond the schoolhouse door. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 513–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. M., & Kelley, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: what gets taught in principal preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 221–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., et al. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood. Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaafar, S. B., & Anderson, S. (2007). Policy tends and tensions in accountability for educational management and services in Canada. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Principals as agents: subjective performance measurement in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 973–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T., Kerr, K., & Pianta, R. (2014). Designing teacher evaluation systems: new guidance from the measures of effecting project. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2010). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. NBER #15803.

  • Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1–2), 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmetz, J., & Willower, D. (1982). Elementary school principals’ work behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konstantopoulos, S. (2014). Teacher effects, value-added models, and accountability. Teachers College Record, 116(1).

  • Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Race to the Top in Illinois: understanding school leaders’ capacity to implement teacher evaluation. Invited paper presented at Implementation of Educator Evaluation Systems: Examining Problems of Practice, a conference co-sponsored by the Northeast Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance at the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands (REL-NEI) at EDC and the National Center for Teacher Effectiveness (NCTE) at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Bozack, A. R. (2015). Successes and struggles of teaching: perspectives of beginning, midcareer, and veteran teachers. Journal of Teaching Effectiveness and Student Achievement, 2(2), 68–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. (2014). Coping with increased demands for teacher evaluation: school leaders’ perceptions of problems and possibility. Invited paper presented at Using Observational and Student Achievement Data to Improve Teaching, Tucson, AZ.

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2014). Teacher and student evaluation: moving beyond the failure of school reform. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2015). Improving teaching through observation and feedback: going beyond state and federal mandates. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipscomb, S., Teh, B., Gill, B., Chiang, H., & Owens, A. (2010). Teacher and principal value added: Research findings and implementation practices. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531785.pdf.

  • Lock, G., & Lummis, G. (2014). Complying with school accountability requirements and the impact on school leaders. Australian Journal Of Teacher Education, 39(2), 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb, S. (2013). How can value-added measures be used for teacher improvement? Carnegie Knowledge Network. Retrieved from http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/teacher_improvement/.

  • Loeb, S., & Candelaria, C. A. (2012). How stable are value-added estimates across years, subjects, and student groups? Retrieved from http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/value-added/value-added-stability/.

  • Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj, S. (2014). Administrators’ views on teacher evaluation: examining Ontario’s teacher performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 152, 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. J., & Willower, D. J. (1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 69–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. (2011). The art and science of teaching causal teacher evaluation model. Blairsville: Learning Sciences International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measure of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattei, P. (2012). Market accountability in schools: policy reforms in England, Germany, France and Italy. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, D. F., Sass, T. R., Lockwood, J. R., & Mihaly, K. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 572–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2009). An historical review of research and development activities pertaining to the preparation of school leaders. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 86–128). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MetLife (2013). The MetLife survey of the American teacher. Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf.

  • Mihaly, K., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2014). Grade-level variation in observational measures of teacher effectiveness. 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. 9–49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milstein, M. (1999). Reflections on “the evolution of educational leadership programs.”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: new blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Elementary School Principals (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from www.naesp.org/llc.pdf.

  • National Association of Secondary School Principals (2001). NASSP Background [Online]. Retrieved from www.principals.org/about_us/02-01.html.

  • OECD (2014a). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en.

  • OECD (2014b). Results from TALIS 2013: United States of America http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/TALIS-2013-country-note-US.pdf.

  • Ovando, M. N., & Ramirez, A. R. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, K. D. (1987). Use of standardized tests in teacher evaluation for career ladder systems. Educational Measurement: Issues And Practice, 6(1), 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polikoff, M. S. (2014). Does the test matter? Evaluating teachers when tests differ in their sensitivity to instruction. 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. 278–302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, A., Clouse, W., & Davis, K. W. (2014). Teacher evaluation in Colorado: how policy frustrates practice. Management in Education, 28(2), 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Range, B. G., Scherz, S., Holt, C. R., & Young, S. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: the Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Range, B. G., McKim, C., Mette, I. M., & Hvidston, D. J. (2014). Aspiring principals' perspectives about teacher supervision and evaluation: insights from educational leadership preparation programs. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 15(1).

  • Rasmussen, P., & Zou, Y. (2014). The development of educational accountability in China and Denmark. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(115–121), 1–22. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22.1693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. (2014). What do we know about the long-term impacts of teacher value-added? Retrieved from http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/CKN_Raudenbush_Long-Term-Impacts_v2.pdf.

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Jean, M. (2012). How should educators interpret value-added scores? Retrieved from http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/valueadded/interpreting-value-added/.

  • Robinson, V. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership And Policy In Schools, 9(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Open-to-learning conversations: Background paper for OLC module 3 building trust in schools through open-to-learning conversations. First-time principals programme. The University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development/Leadership-programmes/First-time-principals-modules/Module-3-Building-trust.

  • Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, J., & Mathis, W. J. (2013). Review of the two culminating reports from the MET project. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-final-met-rothstein.pdf.

  • Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: an interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1154–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12, 301–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. C. (2014). The global transformation toward testing for accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(115–121), 1–30. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22.1571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P. (2004). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styron, R. A., & LeMire, S. D. (2009). Principal preparation programs: perceptions of high school principals. Journal of College Teacher and Learning, 6(6), 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, M. (2011). The highly qualified teacher: what is teacher quality and how do we measure it? New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strunk, K. O., Weinstein, T. L., & Makkonen, R. (2014). Sorting out the signal: do multiple measures of teachers’ effectiveness provide consistent information to teachers and principals? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(100).

  • Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2009). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taut, S., & Sun, Y. (2014). The development and implementation of a national, standards-based, multi-method teacher performance assessment system in Chile. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(71).

  • Tuckman, B. W., & Oliver, W. T. (1986). Effectiveness of feedback to teachers as a function of source. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(4), 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Great teachers and great leaders. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/great-teachers-great-leaders.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education (2010). Race to the Top guidance and frequently asked questions. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) (2012). Public school principal data file, 2011–12.

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Race to the Top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.

  • Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2014). The influence of teachers’ expectations on principals’ implementation of a new teacher evaluation policy in Flemish secondary education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability.

  • Ydesen, C., & Andreasen, K. E. (2014). Accountability practices in the history of Danish primary public education from the 1660s to the present. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(115–121), 1–27. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22.1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda, S. L. (2007). The principal as instructional leader: a handbook for supervisors (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Roosevelt University, 430 S. Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL, 60603, USA

    Alyson Leah Lavigne

  2. College of Education, Roosevelt University, 1400 N. Roosevelt Blvd, Schaumburg, IL, 60173, USA

    Roger Wade Chamberlain

Authors
  1. Alyson Leah Lavigne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Wade Chamberlain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alyson Leah Lavigne or Roger Wade Chamberlain.

Appendix

Appendix

figure afigure afigure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lavigne, A.L., Chamberlain, R.W. Teacher evaluation in Illinois: school leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educ Asse Eval Acc 29, 179–209 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation