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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367.
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.
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.
Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.
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.
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.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2008). Six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, G. E. (2013). Evaluating change processes: Assessing the extent of implementation (constructs, methods, and implications). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 264–289.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
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.
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.
Honig, M., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
Hord, S. M., Ruterford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kertsen, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1–2), 47–67.
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.
Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China; latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability., 25(3), 231–250.
Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339–351.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36(5), 521–536.
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Derrington, M.L., Campbell, J.W. Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. J Educ Change 16, 305–326 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6