Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence

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

Abstract

In recent years, substantial investments have been made in reengineering systems of teacher evaluation. The new generation models of teacher evaluation typically adopt a standards-based view of teaching quality and include a value-added measure of growth in student learning. With more than a decade of experience and research, it is timely to assess empirical evidence bearing on the efficacy of this school improvement strategy. This paper examines the new generation of teacher evaluation along three lines of analysis: evidence on the magnitude, consistency, and stability of teacher effects on student learning, evidence on the impact of teacher evaluation on growth in student learning, and literature from the sociology of organizations on how schools function. Although the trend towards focusing on teacher evaluation is increasingly evident internationally, most of the empirical research evaluated in this paper is from the USA. This critical evaluation of the empirical literature yields two key conclusions. First, we conclude that the policy logic supporting this reform remains considerably stronger than the empirical evidence. Second, we suggest that alternative improvement strategies may yield more positive results and at a lower cost in terms of staff time and district funds.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 93–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A., Burgess, S., Croxsonc, B., Gregg, P., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson, D. (2009). Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England. Labour Economics, 16(3), 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attinello, J., Lare, D., & Waters, F. (2006). The value of teacher portfolios for evaluation and professional growth. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 132–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L., Barton, P., E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H.F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R.J., & Shepard, L.A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. EPI Briefing Paper #278. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute

  • Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high-poverty middle schools: enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(2), 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. (1980). Run school run. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Barth, R. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), 293–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bembry, K. L., & Schumacker, R. E. (2002). Establishing the utility of a classroom effectiveness index as a teacher accountability measure. Journal for Effective Schools, 1(1), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. Marsh (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972–1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasé, J., & Kirby, P. (2009). Bringing out the best in teachers: what effective principals do. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty schools: outcomes and implications. Review of Research in Education, 29(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G., & Kimball, S. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: do teachers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School journal, 106(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressoux, P., & Bianco, M. (2004). Long-term teacher effects on pupils’ learning gains. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 327–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E. (1967). Instructional leadership: a concept re-examined. Journal of Educational Administration, 5(2), 136–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E. (1990). Managing the incompetent teacher (2nd ed.). Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., & Allensworth, E. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castetter, W. B. (1976). The personnel function in educational administration. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., Mcpartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. T. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosnoe, R. (2011). Fitting in, standing out: navigating the social challenges of high school to get an education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2006). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: what does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fraine, J., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2002). Accountability of schools and teachers: what should be taken into account? European Educational Research Journal, 1(3), 403–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L. (1990). Developing teacher evaluation systems that promote professional growth. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L., Showers, B. K., & Amber, M. (1980). Teacher and shared decision-making: the costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 16(1), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellett, C., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness: perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, A. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., & Delany, M. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61(2), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates Foundation. (2013). Measures of effective teaching (MET). Downloaded January 14, 2013 from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/measures-of-effective-teaching-fact-sheet.aspx.

  • Glass, G. (2013). Gates Foundation wastes more money pushing VAM. Downloaded January 14, 2013 from http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2013/01/gates-foundation-wastes-more-money.html.

  • Gleeson, D., & Husbands, C. (2003). Modernizing schooling through performance management: a critical appraisal. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 499–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next, 2(1). Downloaded on Jan. 3, 2013 from http://educationnext.org/the-mystery-of-good-teaching/.

  • Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National board certification as a signal of effective teaching. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Applied and Practice-based Research, 22(2), 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., Wilcox, B., Goldstein, H., Hannon, V., Hedger, K., Jesson, D., Rasbash, J., & Sime, N. (1995). Good school, bad school: evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotke, E. (1953). Professional distance and teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 34(4), 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 126–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., & Heck. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97, 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., Ko, J., & Walker, A. (2014). Exploring whole school vs. subject department improvement in Hong Kong secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, in press.

  • Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh, J. A., & Miles, J. (2008). Accountability and teaching practices: school-level actions and teacher responses. In B. Fuller, M. K. Henne, & E. Hannum (Eds.), Strong states, weak schools: the benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability. St. Louis: Emerald (Research in the Sociology of Education, Vol. 16, pp. 31–66).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 84–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 16606 http://www.nber.org/papers/w16606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: lessons from the past half century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (2005). A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 263–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, W., & Rosenholtz, S. (1984). Good schools: what research says about improving school achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 61, 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 626–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heneman, H., III, & Milanowski, A. T. (2007). Assessing human resource alignment: the foundation for building total teacher quality improvement. Madison: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R., & Stringfield, S. (1997). Ten promising programs for educating all children: evidence of impact. Arlington: Education Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D., & Stern, D. (1996). Quality teachers, quality schools: international perspectives and policy implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 501–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education research. Retrieved June 1st 2010 from www.stanford.edu/.../Principal%20Time-Use%20Research%20Paper%20(revised).pdf.

  • Ikemoto, G., Taliaferro, L., & Adams, E. (2012). Playmakers: how great principals build and lead great teams of teachers. New York: New Leaders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A., & Downey, C. (2010). Value-added measures for schools in England: looking inside the ‘black box’ of complex metrics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 181–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. T. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppich, J., & Showalter, C. (2005). Strategic management of human capital: a cross-case analysis of five districts. Madison: Strategic Management of Human Capital.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2009). A synthesis of studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G., & Wexley, K. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. S., & Hallinger, P. (2012). Exploring the impact of national context on principals’ time use: economic development, societal culture, and educational system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, L., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: an international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: how successful leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A. (2008). Add it up: using research to improve education and minority students. Washington, DC: Poverty and Race Research Action Council. Available from http://www.prrac.org/pubs_aiu.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China: latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 231–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 315–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loup, K., Garland, J., Ellett, C., & Rugutt, J. (1996). Ten years later: findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, K. (1996). How I confronted HSPS (hyperactive superficial principal syndrome) and began to deal with the heart of the matter. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 336–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica: Rand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medley, D., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1975). Notes on the structure of educational organizations: revised version. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Milanowski, A. (2004a). Relationships among dimension scores of standards-based teacher evaluation systems and the stability of evaluation score/student achievement relationships over time. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanowski, A. (2004b). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanowski, A.T., Kimball, S., & White, B. (2004). The relationship between standards-based teacher evaluation scores and student achievement: replication and extensions at three sites. CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-01. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education

  • Milanowski, A., Kimball, S., & Odden, A. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and links to learning. In L. Stiefel, A. Schwartz, R. Rubenstein, & J. Zabel (Eds.), Measuring school performance and efficiency: implications for practice and research (pp. 137–161). Washington D.C.: Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman, J. (1981). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman, J. (1997). Grading teachers, grading schools; is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. F. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In R. S. Lotto & P. W. Thurston (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: changing perspectives on the school (Vol. 1, Pt. B, pp. 163–200). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. F. (1991). Restructuring schools: capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. F. (2008). Turning around failing schools: leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Lotto, L., & Miller, S. (1987). Barriers to implementing the instructional leadership role. The Canadian Administrator, 27(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. F., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: the case of missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musella, D. (1970). Improving teacher evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odden, A. (2004). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 126–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odden, A., & Wallace, M. (2008). How to achieve world class teacher compensation. Indianapolis: Freeload.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 269–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: a review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 426–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Range, B., Scherz, S., Holt, C., & Young, S. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: the Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(3), 243–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, P., Scribner, J., & Scribner, A. (1999). Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: creating learning communities. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Hopkins, D., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 206–231). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D., Muijs, D., & Treharne, D. (2003). Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper # W6691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., & Timperly, H. (2007). The leadership of the improvement of teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 247–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 635–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, J., & Speroni, C. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness. American Economic Review, 100(2), 261–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: the social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value added estimation: selection on observables and unobservables. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper, 14666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B. R., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVASS). Mixed-methods model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W., Ashton, J., & Wright, S. (2005). Comparison of the effects of NBPTS-certified teachers with other teachers on the rate of student academic progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: a study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: inconcistencies and problematic issues. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., Karweit, N., & Madden, N. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2009). School principals at work: a distributed perspective. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 87–110). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R., & Duke, D. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: research on teacher evaluation. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: how innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (2001). Dimensions of secondary school effectiveness: comparative analyses across regions. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(3), 285–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Available at: www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2013.

  • Tyack, D. B. (1974). One best system. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. (2011). Improving student learning: action principles for families, classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. D., & Ko, J. (2011). Principal leadership in an era of accountability: a perspective from the Hong Kong context. School Leadership & Management, 31(4), 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, W. J., & Mendro, R. L. (1997). The Dallas value-added accountability system. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools; is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 81–99). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. (2004). The relationship between teacher evaluation scores and student achievement: evidence from Coventry, RI. CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-04. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, San Diego, CA.

  • Wilson, M., Hallman, P. J., Pecheone, R., & Moss, P. (2014). Using student achievement test scores as evidence of external validity for indicators of teacher quality: Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training Program. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. in press.

  • Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M., & Bernstein, H. (1985). Teacher evaluation: a study of effective practices. Elementary School Journal, 86(1), 60–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S., Horn, S., & Sanders, P. (1997). Classroom context effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Rd., Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong, China

    Philip Hallinger

  2. College of Education, University of Hawaii-Manoa, 1776 University Avenue, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Ronald H. Heck

  3. Vanderbilt University, Box 414, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA

    Joseph Murphy

Authors
  1. Philip Hallinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald H. Heck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Hallinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hallinger, P., Heck, R.H. & Murphy, J. Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educ Asse Eval Acc 26, 5–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation