The Language of Instructional Improvement in the U.S.: A View from Current Law and Policy Reports

  • Helen M. Hazi
Part of the Palgrave Studies on Leadership and Learning in Teacher Education book series (PSLLTE)


After two decades of focus on teacher evaluation, the next policy frontier for states to explore is instructional improvement. Language matters. It reflects an ideology that guides practice. The prevailing view, influenced by both behaviorism and workplace psychology, is that when principals evaluate teachers and deliver “actionable feedback,” teachers change their behavior. This research examines how instructional improvement is promoted in the language of current law and national reports in the U. S. The researcher then challenges simplistic, flawed notions about feedback and its delivery, and calls for administrators to understand how teachers learn.


  1. Archer, J., Cantrell, S., Holtzman, S., Joe, W., Tocci, C., & Wood, J. (2016). Better feedback for better teaching: A practical guide to improving classroom observations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education and teaching. American Journal of Education, 92(4), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.Google Scholar
  4. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2016). Principles for teacher support and evaluation systems. Retrieved from
  5. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477.Google Scholar
  6. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  7. Danielson, C. (2016, April 18). Charlotte Danielson on rethinking teacher evaluation. Education Week. Retrieved from
  8. Deming, J. E. (2018, January 19). Continuous improvement. Retrieved from
  9. Donaldson, M. L. (2009). So long, Lake Wobegon? Using teacher evaluation to raise teacher quality. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
  10. Ellett, C. (1987). Emerging teacher performance assessment practices: Implications for the instructional supervision role of school principals. In W. Greenfield’s (Ed.), Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies (pp. 302–327). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Farr, J., Baytalskaya, N., & Johnson, J. (2012). Not everyone is above average: Providing feedback in formal job performance evaluations. In R. Sutton, M. Hornsey, & K. Douglas (Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 201–215). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Feiman-Nemser, S. (Ed.). (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garman, N. B., & Hazi, H. M. (1988). Teachers ask: Is there life after Madeline Hunter? The Phi Delta Kappan, 69(9), 669–672.Google Scholar
  14. Hattie, J. (2012). Feedback in schools. In R. Sutton, M. Hornsey, & K. Douglas (Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 265–277). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Using feedback to promote learning. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. A publication of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from
  16. Hazi, H. M. (1989). Measurement versus supervisory judgment: The case of Sweeney v. Turlington. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(3), 211–229.Google Scholar
  17. Hazi, H. M. (2010). The statewide teacher evaluation instrument: Icon or fetish of teacher quality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA SIG, Instructional Supervision, Denver, Co.Google Scholar
  18. Hazi, H. M. (2014). The marketing of teacher evaluation: The seductive claims of instruments. The WERA Educational Journal, 6(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  19. Hazi, H. M. (2015). Teacher evaluation in statute, regulation and litigation: A view of the mid-Atlantic region with a focus on Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 35(1), 6–17.Google Scholar
  20. Hazi, H. M. (2015–2016). Research on teacher evaluation: A review of statute, regulation and litigation in the region. The Rural Educator, 37(1), 39–45.Google Scholar
  21. Hazi, H. M. (2017). The commodification of instructional improvement in an age of high-stakes accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA SIG, Instructional Supervision, San Antonio.Google Scholar
  22. Hazi, H. M. (2019). Coming to understand the wicked problem of teacher evaluation. In S. J. Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), Handbook of educational supervision. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2014). Policy meets practice: Districts feel the impact of state regulations. Journal of Staff Development, 35(6), 44–47.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, M. (2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 225–249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavigne, A., & Good, T. (2014). Teacher and student evaluation: Moving beyond the failure of school reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Leahy, C. (2012). Teacher evaluation training: Ensuring quality classroom observers. Denver: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from
  29. McConachie, S., & Petrosky, A. (2010). Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Myung, J., & Martinez, K. (2013, July). Strategies for enhancing the impact of post-observation feedback for teachers. Stanford: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from
  31. Pajak, E. (2011). Cultural narcissism and education reform. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 2018–2046.Google Scholar
  32. Pianta, B., & Hofkens, T. (2018, November 21). Researching ‘what works’ in education isn’t working. Education Week. Retrieved from
  33. Putnam, H., Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2018). Making a difference: Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from
  34. Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122–183). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  35. Sawchuk, S. (2016, March 1). State chiefs pledge to maintain teacher evaluation post NCLB. Education Week. Retrieved from
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Retrieved from,-issue-1/herarticle/foundations-of-the-new-reform_461
  37. “Soft language.” (2018). Urban dictionary. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from
  38. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2017a, July). SREB feedback on teaching: A fresh look. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved from
  39. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2017b, September). Evaluator training: Improving a key building block of better instruction, a guide for states. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved from
  40. The Gates Foundation. (2018). Findings help inform design and implementation of high-quality feedback and evaluation systems, a press release. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from
  41. The National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ). (2018, January 23). Our approach. Retrieved from
  42. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from
  44. U.S. Department of Education. (2012, February). ESEA flexibility review guidance. Retrieved June 30, 2015, from
  45. U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February 28). Questions and answers on No Child Left Behind: Doing what works, archived information. Retrieved from
  46. Walsh, K., Joseph, N., Lakis, K., & Lubell, S. (2017, January). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from
  47. Will, M. (2018, October). These six teacher-evaluation systems have gotten results, analysis says. Education Week. Retrieved from
  48. Yendol-Hoppey, D., Jacobs, J., & Burns, R. (2019). Improving teacher practice-based knowledge: What teachers need to know and how they come to know it. In S. J. Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), Handbook of supervision. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen M. Hazi
    • 1
  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations