EDUCATORS’ EXPERIENCES WITH NEW
APPROACHES TO TEACHER EVALUATION
By
Nina Levorn Hasty

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education-Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
EDUCATORS’ EXPERIENCES WITH NEW APPROACHES TO TEACHER EVALUATION
By
Nina Levorn Hasty
Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, there have been enormous
pressures placed on public schools to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Data from
standardized state assessments are being used to examine student growth and to create stronger
accountability measures for schools. Educators have had to redefine, restructure, and refocus
their efforts on best instructional practices, and they have placed an increased emphasis on
student improvement. The federal government, states, and school districts are placing increased
demands on building principals, who have the challenge to serve as instructional leaders, rather
than as overseers of their buildings. Principals not only have to concern themselves with the
management of the school itself, but also with accountability processes as they relate to teaching
and learning.
The Race to the Top program, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009, led many states to enact changes in their teacher evaluation policy. Race to the
Top is built on a framework of comprehensive reform in four core education reform areas:
adopting rigorous standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the
workplace; recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals;
building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they
can improve their practices; and turning around the lowest-performing schools. Also, these
changes include adapting more rigorous classroom observation instruments and supporting their
use in high-stakes decisions such as teacher promotion, compensation, and dismissal.

Research conducted prior to the enactment of Race to the Top found that leadership,
especially instructional leadership, was one of several characteristics of successful schools.
Evidence has also shown that school leaders who are knowledgeable about their district’s
evaluation process are likely to be successful in helping teachers interpret and adapt to current
policies (Burch & Spillane, 2003; Coburn, 2005; Youngs, 2007). Teachers depend on the
leadership in their building to support their implementation of effective instructional practices
that are mandated by new teacher evaluation systems. However, there has been little research on
the characteristics of effective principal leadership in the context of new approaches to teacher
evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine educators’ experiences with new
approaches to teacher evaluation.

DEDICATION
This research project is dedicated to my family and friends who supported and encouraged me
throughout this process. I would especially like to thank my parents Edmond and Maybell
Hasty, my sisters, and brother who prayed for my continuous courage and strength to cross the
finish line. To that special person who was there from the beginning of this journey; I will
forever be grateful and thankful for your friendship.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was completed with much respect, gratitude, and help from so many
supportive people. First, to the chairperson of my committee, Dr. Peter Youngs, I would like to
thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity. Your leadership and guidance were
invaluable. Also, thank you for your wisdom an d dedication to my goal of completing my
degree. You challenged me to become a better student and teacher. To my dissertation
committee-- Dr. Patricia Edwards, Dr. Troy Mirage, and Dr. Douglas Campbell, thank you for
your support. To the administrators, and teachers who participated in the study, thank you for
sharing your knowledge and being so gracious to give up your precious time to speak with me. I
would also like to thank Dean Lynne Morgan and Baker College for granting me a leave of
absence to complete my degree. Finally, to my Michigan State University family Dr. Susan
Florio-Ruane, Dr. Laura Pardo, Dr. Tambra O. Jackson, and Darryl Pettway, thank you for
believing in my dream.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

x

Chapter 1
Introduction
Literature Review
Teacher Evaluation Approaches
Traditional teacher evaluation approaches.
Non-Tenured vs. Tenured Teacher Status
Non-tenured teacher status.
Tenured teacher status.
Classroom Observations
Value-added Models
Research on the Danielson Framework for Teaching
Teachers’ Interpretations of and Responses to Reforms
Principal Leadership Related to Teacher Evaluation and/or Reform
Principal leadership.
Principal-Teacher Relational Trust
How Classroom Observations Measure and Potentially Lead to Changes
in Instruction
The Need for this Study
Implications and Conclusion from the Literature Review

1
1
3
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
9
12
13
13
16
19

Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework
Principal Leadership
Principal Leadership Behaviors
Clear vision.
Active supervision.
Teacher collaboration.
Methodology
Description of the Study and Research Questions
Site and Participant Description
Participants at Addison.
Participants at Stuvenberry.
Addison and Stuvenberry Elementary Schools.
Researcher’s Background.
Data Collection
Artifacts

23
23
26
27
27
28
28
29
30
31
31
32
33
34
35
36

vi

21
21

36
37

Data Analysis
Establishing Validity
Chapter 3
The Role Principal Leadership Plays in Teachers’ Responses to the New Teacher
Evaluation (TE)
Principal Leadership
How Principals Prepared Their Staff with Information on the New TE
How Principals Implement the New TE
Scheduling/time of the observations.
Use of CDF materials.
Pre-observation conference.
Post-observation conference.
Principal-Teacher Trust
Sincere listening and respect.
Personal regard for others.
Competence.
Integrity.
Pre-and Post-Conference Oral and Written Feedback
Pre-conference oral and written feedback.
Post-conference oral and written feedback.
Walk-throughs
Summary

39
39

Chapter 4
Elementary Teachers Interpret and Respond to the New TE
Teachers’ Experiences with the New Teacher Evaluation System
How Teachers Learned about the CDF
Pre- and post-conferences.
Domains and ratings.
Plan of Action for Unsatisfactory Ratings
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across
the Two Schools?
Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Principals’ Levels of Communication about and
Support for the New System
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across
the Two Schools?
Ways in Which the New Teacher Evaluation System Supported Teachers’
Instruction
Teachers’ Concerns
Addison Teachers were Concerned about the Principal’s Implementation of the
New System While Stuvenberry Teachers Did Not Share this Concern
Teachers’ Concerns about How the Classroom Observation Ratings Were Being
Used
Teachers’ Concerns about VAMs

71
71
71
72
74
76
77
79

vii

40
41
47
47
48
49
51
55
55
58
59
61
62
63
64
67
68

80
83
84
87
87
90
92

Student performance on state tests.
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across
the Two Schools?
Summary

92
94
95

Chapter 5
Discussion of Findings
Principals’ Implementation of the New Teacher Evaluation System
Introduction to the new system.
Implementing the new teacher evaluation system.
Principal-teacher trust.
Personal regard.
Integrity.
Opportunities that Teachers had to Learn about the New Teacher Evaluation
System
Teachers’ Experiences with the New Teacher Evaluation System
Limitations/Implications for Future Research
Interpretations of Main Findings
Implications for Practice
Reflection

99
99
99
99
102
103
103
105
106

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Bryk & Schneider, 2002 Relational Trust Theory
APPENDIX B Principal Interview Protocol Questions
Study of Educators’ Experiences with New Approaches to Teacher Evaluation
APPENDIX C Teacher Interview Protocol Questions
Study of Educators’ Experiences with New Approaches to Teacher Evaluation
APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM FOR TEACHERS/PRINCIPALS

119
120
121

REFERENCES

126

viii

107
110
112
113
114

123
125

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1A. Main Findings

68

Table 2A. Domains for Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2013)

ix

118

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bryk & Schneider, 2002 Relational Trust Theory

x

120

Chapter 1
Introduction
Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, there have been enormous
pressures placed on public schools to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Data from
standardized state assessments are being used to examine student growth and to create stronger
accountability measures for schools. Educators have had to redefine, restructure, and refocus
their efforts on best instructional practices, and they have placed an increased emphasis on
student improvement. The federal government, states, and school districts are placing increased
demands on building principals, who have the challenge to serve as instructional leaders, rather
than as overseers of their buildings. Principals not only have to concern themselves with the
management of the school itself, but also with accountability processes as they relate to teaching
and learning.
The Race to the Top program, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009, led many states to enact changes in their teacher evaluation policy. Race to the
Top is built on a framework of comprehensive reform in four core education reform areas:
adopting rigorous standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the
workplace; recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals;
building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they
can improve their practices; and turning around the lowest-performing schools. Also, these
changes include adapting more rigorous classroom observation instruments and supporting their
use in high-stakes decisions such as teacher promotion, compensation, and dismissal.
Research conducted prior to the enactment of Race to the Top found that leadership,
especially instructional leadership, was one of several characteristics of successful schools.

1

Evidence has also shown that school leaders who are knowledgeable about their district’s
evaluation process are likely to be successful in helping teachers interpret and adapt to current
policies (Burch & Spillane, 2003; Coburn, 2005; Youngs, 2007). Teachers depend on the
leadership in their building to support their implementation of effective instructional practices
that are mandated by new teacher evaluation systems. However, there has been little research on
the characteristics of effective principal leadership in the context of new approaches to teacher
evaluation.
The purpose of this study was to examine educators’ experiences with new approaches to
teacher evaluation. In this study, I used data from principal and teacher interviews to explore the
following research questions:
1. What role does principal leadership play in teachers’ responses to new approaches
to teacher evaluation?
2. How do elementary teachers interpret and respond to new approaches to teacher
evaluation?
In this chapter, I review relevant research on teacher evaluation, focusing in particular on
the possible effects that new approaches to teacher evaluation have on teachers, the role of
principal leadership in shaping teachers’ responses to reforms, and how classroom observations
measure and potentially lead to changes in instruction. In the second chapter, I describe my
theoretical framework, which draws on principal-teacher relational trust theory (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002); discuss the methodology used for this study, including the research design,
data collection methods, and data analysis plans; and address the potential significance of this
study and its possible contributions to the research and practitioner fields. The third and fourth
chapters present the main findings from the study. Finally, I conclude by discussing my findings

2

in relation to other relevant research, considering some limitations of this study, and describing
implications of my study for future research.
Literature Review
In this section, I discuss research on (a) teacher evaluation approaches, including
classroom observations and value-added measures; (b) the role of principal leadership and other
factors in influencing teachers’ responses to teacher evaluation reforms; (c) principal-teacher
trust; and (d) how classroom observations measure and potentially lead to changes in instruction.
I conclude this section by summarizing the gaps in the literature on teacher evaluation, and by
describing the ways in which my study will address these gaps. I argue that studies to date have
provided limited evidence on how school leaders can promote teacher learning and changes in
instruction through the teacher evaluation process.
Teacher Evaluation Approaches
Traditional teacher evaluation approaches. Traditional teacher supervision and
evaluation approaches typically call for building principals to observe classroom lessons and
record notes. Next, principals convert their notes to an evaluation instrument or rubric that helps
them to rate the lesson against a previously determined scale. Lessons are often judged based on
whether or the degree to which (a) the teacher clearly stated the learning objectives to students,
(b) the teacher linked classroom activities to the learning objectives, (c) students appeared
engaged by the lesson, (d) there was off-task behavior on the part of students, and, if applicable,
(e) there was evidence of student learning during the lesson. After rating the teacher’s lesson in
each category, the principal then typically offers some affirmative and prescriptive feedback in
addition to the ratings, and judges the lesson in its entirety with an overall rating, such as
Outstanding, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory. If time permits, the two parties

3

may meet to discuss the lesson and the evaluation (Kane, Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2010;
Sartain, Stoelinga, & Brown, 2011). This practice and others like it occur in thousands of
schools across of the country and have been the trend for the past 30 years.
According to Marshall (1996), this process is largely ineffective and typically has little
impact on the quality of teaching and learning in schools. Traditional teacher evaluation
procedures often place teachers in the role of passive participants who have little input into their
evaluation, beyond one or two brief meetings with the principal. For example, Peterson (2000)
concluded from his review of the literature that typical teacher evaluation practices neither
improve teachers’ practices nor accurately represent what happens in the classroom. DarlingHammond, Wise, and Pease (1983) considered teacher evaluation methods to be generally of low
reliability and validity. Others have criticized teacher evaluation as insignificant (Stiggins &
Duke, 1988), or as based on simplistic criteria with minimal relevance to what teachers need to
do to improve student learning (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Medley and Coker (1987)
reviewed studies from the 1950s to the 1970s and established that the relationship between
principal ratings of teacher performance and student achievement was mostly weak. Their own
study found correlations between principal performance ratings and learning gains of only .10 to
.23.
Research by Milanowski and Heneman (2001) described traditional evaluation
procedures as part of an outdated system that is cumbersome and places little emphasis on
improving instruction. Milanowski and Heneman (2001) stated, “The single annual observation
traditionally used to assess most teachers is more of a check to ensure minimally acceptable
performance than a formative process” (p. 198). Rubrics are seldom designed to provide
teachers with criteria-referenced data as an assessment of teaching. As a result, ratings of

4

performance are often subjectively given out by principals and often reflect value judgments, as
opposed to being based on teaching evidence (Darling-Hammond, Wise & Pease, 1983). Despite
research that shows that adults respond primarily to positive reinforcement and desire to operate
in a collegial environment, traditional teacher evaluation approaches often fail to communicate
these understandings while treating teachers as passive participants in the process (Brandt, 1996).
Non-Tenured vs. Tenured Teacher Status
In this section, I define teacher tenure and provide background on non-tenured status and
tenured status. While my study will focus on tenured teachers, it is important to explain nontenured teacher status in order fully to explicate tenured teacher status.
What is teacher tenure? The purpose of tenure is to provide a measure of job security for
teachers, protection against subjective employment decisions, and protection to be able to teach
students without constraints; all of these are expected to promote a classroom environment
beneficial to learning (Michigan AFT, 2013).
Non-tenured teacher status. The Tenure Act in Michigan provides a statutory
framework for the probationary period (non-tenured status). School districts are required to
provide non-tenured teachers with an individualized development plan and evaluations at least
yearly, based on a minimum of two classroom observations. At least 60 days before the end of
the school year, the district must provide the probationary teacher with a written notice
indicating whether or not his or her work has been satisfactory. Failure to provide the required
individualized development plan, evaluations, or written notice is considered irrefutable evidence
that the teacher's work is satisfactory. A satisfactory rating requires automatic employment for
the following year (unless terminated for economic reasons). A teacher rated satisfactory in the
final probationary year must be granted tenure (Michigan AFT, 2013).

5

Tenured teacher status. A new teacher in a Michigan school district must serve a
probationary period of four years. After four years of satisfactory service in an appropriate
position, a certificated teacher automatically attains tenure. If a teacher has already attained
tenure in another Michigan school district, the probationary period is usually two years, but
school districts have the option to waive some or the entire two-year requirement. Traditionally
in Michigan, after teachers obtained tenure, they were not evaluated very often; in most districts,
tenured teachers have traditionally been evaluated once every three to five years.
Classroom Observations
In this section, I focus on two classroom observation instruments that are commonly used
across the U.S.: the Danielson Framework for Teaching and the Classroom Assessment Scoring
System (CLASS).
The district where I am conducting my research recently adopted the 2013 Danielson
Framework for Teaching for their teacher evaluation instrument to assess the performance of
their teachers. All teachers, regardless of whether they are tenured or non-tenured, must now be
evaluated a minimum of twice a year to ensure their effectiveness as teachers. The Danielson
Framework focuses on four domains that are associated with student learning: (a) Planning and
Preparation, (b) Classroom Environment, (c) Instruction, and (d) Professional Responsibilities
(Danielson, 2013).
The 2013 edition of the Danielson Framework has enhancements that include helping
teachers respond to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS call for teachers to
help students become active and deep conceptual thinkers who are able to take a position and
support it with logic and evidence— skills and strategies needed for college and future careers.
Therefore, curricula, instructional materials, and students’ assessments are being revised to

6

support instruction associated with the CCSS. Teachers are now expected to teach for deep
conceptual understanding, argumentation, and logical reading, which may represent major
challenges for some teachers (Danielson, 2013).
In terms of elements within the four domains, there are six elements for Planning and
Preparation, five elements for Classroom Environment, five elements for Instruction, and six
elements for Professional Responsibilities. Based on their performance, teachers are rated at one
of four levels for each domain: (a) Distinguished, (b) Proficient, (c) Basic, or (d) Unsatisfactory.
In contrast to the Danielson Framework, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS) is a standardized observation measure of global classroom quality that assesses three
domains of quality: (a) Emotional Supports, (b) Classroom Organization, and (c) Instructional
Supports (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). CLASS can be used in pre-kindergarten classrooms through
th

12 grade, and it also applies to teacher-student interactions in classroom contexts across grades
and across content areas.
Within each of the three domains in CLASS, there is a set of behavioral indicators
reflective of that domain, with a 1-7 scale focusing on specific behaviors and interaction patterns
that can be reliably observed in a specified window of time. Using this detailed, multilevel tool
of teacher-child interactions in classroom environments can help in assessing teacher
performance at various levels (Hamre, Pianta, Mashburn & Downer, 2007).
Value-added Models
Value-added models (VAMs) are statistical models that attempt to explain the
contribution of particular teachers (or schools or programs) to student achievement gains over
time (Harris & McCaffrey, 2010). Value-added models require at least two years of student test
scores and are designed to isolate a teacher’s impact on his or her students’ tested progress while
7

controlling for other measureable factors, such as student and school characteristics, that are
outside that teacher’s control (Di Carlo, 2012).
By using multiple measures to evaluate instruction and student learning growth, and then
aligning the results with professional growth opportunities and support, teaching and learning
can be improved (Baker et al., 2010). There are other sources of evidence in addition to VAMs
that should be taken into consideration when one speaks about teacher evaluation: classroom
observations, student feedback, and using student learning outcomes in non-tested
subjects/grades. No one source of data is sufficient to designate a teacher as effective or
ineffective, regardless of the source of data, because the data results are unlikely to provide
enough evidence and could actually lower reliability. With more than one source of data,
evaluations of teachers are potentially more likely to have the validity needed for districts to
make concrete decisions concerning a teacher’s qualifications (Steele et al., 2011; Toch &
Rothman, 2008).
Fuller (2011) and Steele et al. (2011) are also in agreement that student achievement
scores should never be used by themselves to evaluate teachers because VAM scores have been
shown to fluctuate over time. They suggest that multiple sources of data on teacher performance
should be used across multiple years before a teacher is labeled ineffective and faces possible
termination. While many states and districts are implementing VAMs along with the Danielson
Framework or CLASS, the district where I conducted my study only uses classroom observations
to determine teachers’ effectiveness. Therefore, I focused solely focus on educators’ experiences
with classroom observations

8

Research on the Danielson Framework for Teaching
In this section, I discuss findings from studies of districts that have used earlier versions
of the Danielson Framework for Teaching (i.e., versions earlier than the current 2013 version).
Milanowski (2004) conducted a study in the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS), where
there were 48,000 students and 3,000 teachers in more than 70 schools and programs at the time
of the study. Due to state-level efforts to improve student achievement, the district initiated a
knowledge- and skills-based teacher pay evaluation system during the 1998-99 school year. The
evaluation system, which was based on Danielson’s 1996 Framework for Teaching, was
implemented in Cincinnati from 2000-01 to 2002-03, and it was used in making decisions about
teacher salaries, promotion, and retention. The evaluation system focused on the same four
domains mentioned above (see Table 2A in the Appendix) during six classroom observations, in
order to examine the relationship between teachers’ evaluation scores with a rigorous, standardsbased teacher evaluation system and value-added measures of their effects on student
achievement. The results of the study indicated that the CPS teacher evaluation scores had a
moderate degree of criterion-related validity, signifying that the evaluation system was able to
identify teachers who had students with higher than expected gains in achievement. Also, the
results suggested that the observation scores can be used to identify teaching practices that affect
student learning.
In a similar study, Kimball and colleagues (2004) also examined the relationship between
teachers’ ratings on the Danielson Framework for Teaching (1996) and student assessment
results in Washoe County, Nevada, where there were 58,000 students enrolled in 84 schools.
Washoe County used the Danielson Framework in a different way than Cincinnati.

9

Both districts based their evaluation systems on the Framework’s standards and numerous
sources of related evidence (Danielson, 1996). However, unlike Cincinnati, Washoe County “did
not design its evaluation system for use in high-stakes decisions such as salary determinations.
Instead, the evaluation system was designed for low-stakes purposes” (Kimball et al., 2004, p.
56). The changes were proposed to provide an inclusive and research-based conception of
teaching quality that would steer evaluation discussions, and promote formative feedback and
teacher reflection on instruction. The results from the study suggested that the relationship of the
teacher evaluation scores to student achievement was positive for each grade and subject and for
the reading and math composite, but the coefficients were not statistically noteworthy in all
cases.
Gallagher (2004) examined the validity of a performance-based, subject-specific teacher
evaluation system (TES) by analyzing the relationship between teachers’ evaluation scores and
their effects on student achievement (i.e., classroom effects). The study took place at Vaughn
Elementary charter school in the Los Angeles Unified School District, where 85% of its 1,200
students were classified as English language learners. Evaluators used teaching observations,
lesson plans, student work, and other evidence to assess teachers. At the conclusion of each
evaluation cycle, evaluators met with the teacher being evaluated to discuss the evaluation,
provide feedback, and answer questions.
The Vaughn rubrics were designed to assess practices that are associated with improved
student achievement, and they were subject-specific adaptations of the Danielson (1996)
Framework for Teaching. In her analyses, Gallagher reported that “teachers’ average evaluation
scores in literacy were a highly statistically significant predictor of student performance” (2004,
p. 97). Further, the composite teacher evaluation scores also had a significant effect on student

10

learning, but the evaluation scores in math and language arts were not significant predictors of
student gains.
Sartain, Stoelinga, and Brown (2011) drew on two years of data on Chicago Public
School’s (CPS) 2008 newly-designed teacher evaluation system, Excellence in Teaching Pilot,
which was aligned with the 1996 Danielson Framework for Teaching. The researchers examined
the relationship between classroom observation ratings and their value-added measure (i.e.,
student achievement). During the first year of the pilot, 2008-09, 44 elementary teachers
participated; in 2009-10 (the second year of the pilot), 101 elementary teachers participated.
Principal observations of teaching practice were conducted twice a year, and principals held
post-observation conferences with teachers to discuss their teaching practices and evaluation
results.
CPS modified the 1996 Danielson Framework for use in mentoring new teachers and
evaluating teacher performance in a pay-for-performance pilot program. The researchers found
that across the majority of the framework’s components, “teachers with the lowest observation
ratings (had) the lowest value-added measures and the value-added measures increase (d) as the
teacher’s rating increase (d)” (Sartain et al., 2011, p.10-11). The study revealed that teachers
who received an unsatisfactory reading observation score had a value-added measure of -0.397;
those who had a basic observation score had a value-added measure of -0.087; those who had a
proficient observation score had a value-added measure of 0.201; and those who had a
distinguished observation score had a value-added measure of 0.429. Across the other
components of the Framework, the study generated similar findings, indicating a connection
between classroom observation scores and student growth (Sartain et al., 2011).
Taylor and Tyler (2011) studied mid-career Cincinnati public school teachers and the

11

effects that teacher evaluation had on their classroom performance. Teachers were
observed using a scoring rubric based on the 1996 Danielson Framework for Teaching. The
authors found that high-quality classroom observation-based evaluations improved mid-career
teacher performance, both during the period of evaluation and in following years. Students who
were assigned to these teachers after they participated in the teacher evaluation system scored
approximately 10 percent of a standard deviation higher in math than similar students who were
taught by the same teacher prior to the teacher evaluation system (Taylor & Tyler, 2011).
Evidence shows that teacher observations can be very accurate in identifying teacher
effectiveness (Fuller, 2011). Well-trained observers must be able to identify key aspects of
instructional practice and differentiate among different performance levels. In the study
completed by the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project (2012), the researchers
conducted four observations per teacher and used observation rubrics that were associated with
student achievement gains related to math and English Language Arts (ELA). To check the
validity and reliability of the value-added model (VAM) data in their study, they drew on their
classroom observation data in conjunction with the teacher’s VAM scores and student feedback
on their teachers’ instructional practices. Using multiple sources of data helped the researchers
identify the characteristics of teachers who obtained larger student achievement gains in urban
districts with high percentages of racial minority and lower socioeconomic status (SES) students
(MET Project, 2012).
Teachers’ Interpretations of and Responses to Reforms
As teachers begin to decipher a new teacher evaluation system, many discover that their
colleagues can assist them in interpreting the new approaches. In Coburn’s (2001) in-depth case
study of one California elementary school, she examined the processes by which teachers

12

interpreted numerous policy messages concerning reading instruction in the context of their
school-based professional communities. Depending on their interactions with their colleagues,
teachers adapted, adopted, combined, and/or ignored messages from the environment. With
teachers being inundated with multiple messages and pressures to improve student achievement,
they were left to make meaning of the messages. When teachers worked with their peers, as
opposed to working individually, they were often able to incorporate new ideas into their
teaching and make meaning of the messages together. When teachers provided support for one
another, this encouraged them to grasp and deal with numerous and conflicting messages.
Access to resources and expertise was shared among those teachers who collaborated, and this
helped them to sort out which messages they were going to pursue.
Also, the teachers in Coburn’s study assisted one another with turning abstract concepts
into concrete workable concepts in order to use them in their classrooms. The informal settings
in the study allowed for the teachers to hold face-to-face communication about situations that
were about their practice. Teachers had the chance to spend time with their colleagues to make
sense of the reading curriculum, materials, and assessments; this gave them an understanding of
what was beneficial to them and their students before they created their lessons. However,
teacher collaboration involves not just coming together to support teacher learning, but also
supporting those who share the same norms and values.
Principal Leadership Related to Teacher Evaluation and/or Reform
Principal leadership. School leadership is a challenging role, because one must depend
on his/her knowledge, prior professional experience, and professional relationships to work
effectively with students, teachers, parents, and others. Coburn’s (2005) study looked at two
principals in two California urban elementary schools who had different leadership approaches

13

that influenced their teachers’ learning about and enactment of reading policies. The two
principals interpreted and adapted reading policies for their staff in ways that were influenced by
their pre-existing understandings of social context, content knowledge, instructional practices,
and teacher collaboration. For the teachers in one building, they felt that they were a part of a
teaching culture in which the principal valued them and their knowledge, and in which they were
able to assist in decision-making concerning their teaching and learning. In contrast, the teachers
in the other school went along with what their leader wanted even though they did not agree with
her/him (Coburn, 2005).
Coburn’s study revealed that the two principals had opposite outlooks on how they
shaped their teachers’ understanding the current reading policies based on their own knowledge
of reading instruction. Looking at novice teachers, principals should be very cognizant of their
leadership role. Their understanding and implementation could help a novice teacher continue to
build on his/her skills and become an excellent educator, or make one reconsider their desires
and dreams to continue as an educator.
In Youngs’ (2007) study, he examined how six elementary principals’ beliefs and actions
influenced new teachers’ experiences. Principals in the study who were active supervisors were
able to offer their expertise due to their content and pedagogical knowledge, their understanding
of the teacher evaluation process, and their ability to help teachers directly improve their
instruction. Those educators who were “experienced teachers in mentoring and staff
development helped to create and sustain an integrated professional culture” (Youngs, 2007,
p.114).
However, this was not the same scenario for other novice teachers in the study who
worked in different schools. Their principals did not provide instructional guidance or time for

14

collaboration. One principal’s background led him to focus on creating and sustaining a safe,
orderly environment to work. He believed that strong classroom management, as opposed to
teacher collaboration and peer support, was a characteristic of effective schools. The principals’
different understandings of district and state policies and their prior professional experiences
seemed to influence new teachers’ experiences in different ways (Youngs, 2007).
Burch and Spillane (2003) examined how elementary school leaders address both
mathematics and literacy reform in the same schools. In their study, they observed 15 elementary
school administrators and 15 curriculum coordinators from eight urban schools. Twenty-four of
the 30 leaders interviewed in the study identified both reading and mathematics as the primary
focus of their instructional improvements. Since the district pressured leadership for
improvement in test scores in reading and math, there was new urgency to reform these subjects.
The authors showed how active leaders who interacted directly with teachers concerning
classroom teaching and learning were able to understand clearly what their teachers needed or
lacked in materials and instruction, and they were able to provide them with appropriate support
(Burch & Spillane, 2003).
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond conducted a four-year longitudinal study (2001) in 13
elementary schools within the Chicago metropolitan area. The leadership practices they studied
had many commonalities with the leadership practices that were investigated in Burch and
Spillane’s (2003) study and Coburn’s (2005) study. In one of the schools in the Spillane et al.
study, the leaders included the principal, assistant principal, curriculum specialists, Title I
teacher, and classroom teachers. These individuals used “standardized test scores and breakdown
of student performance in certain skill areas to focus instructional improvement efforts on
specific student learning needs” (Spillane, Halvorsen, & Diamond, 2001, p. 24).

15

In another school in the study, the principal and assistant principal provided regular
observations to support teacher development, as well as content and pedagogical knowledge to
assist and monitor instruction. Opportunities were created during the school day for teachers to
collaborate and to participate in professional development. The school administrators were
skilled at calling on other leaders in the building to share their expertise in curriculum and
pedagogy. Principals can be particularly effective leaders when they share responsibilities with
other leaders in the building to ensure that teachers are being supported in their learning
(Spillane, Halvorsen, & Diamond, 2001).
Principal-Teacher Relational Trust
Bryk and Schneider (2002) conducted several studies in the Chicago Public Schools
(CPS) using relational trust as their framework. I also used relational trust as my framework to
examine the relationships among educators at two elementary schools. This study relates to my
study for the reason that both involve an educational reform, although the reform in my study is
different from the reform in Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) study. I am using the same framework
to examine the role of principal leadership and how teachers interpret and respond to new
approaches to teacher evaluation.
One of the schools in Bryk and Schneider’s study, Ridgeway Elementary, had a student
population of 875 in grades PreK-5. Chicago’s decentralization reform began in 1989 after
passage of the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act. The act aimed to bring about more direct
involvement of local school professionals with parents and community members in the
improvement of neighborhood schools through Local School Councils (LSCs). Trust relations
were examined between the principal and teachers, school staff and parents, the principal and the
LSC, and teachers and the LSC, and among teachers.

16

Each group in the school community had many viewpoints concerning the other groups
in the school. Dr. Newman, the principal at Ridgeway, was committed to placing the students’
interests above all others. He was aware that trust was a key factor within the school community
that would support the advances of important changes that he wanted to implement; nonetheless,
his inconsistencies and lack of personal regard for others were a concern to the parents, LSC, and
teachers, and this made them question his leadership abilities. The principal found that the
teachers did not display a high level of personal regard for the students or the competence level
needed to be effective teachers. The teachers and the parents disclosed that the principal was
compassionate towards the members of the school community, that he cared about the students,
and that he was a visible leader. The teachers felt that some of their colleagues lacked personal
regard for the children; they showed little or no compassion. Others believed that their
colleagues were incompetent and lacked the commitment needed to work collaboratively
together, while other teachers did not trust that their colleagues were effective teachers. The
parents felt that some teachers did not display respect for them or their children. Parents also
raised concerns about some teachers’ competence levels and their low expectations for the
children. Then again, the teachers believed that the parents lacked an interest in their child’s
education.
Each member in a given role relation had an understanding of the other member’s
responsibilities and held some expectations that each member would fulfill their responsibilities,
respectively. Respect and integrity were lacking across the school community at Ridgeway,
making it very difficult for relational trust to develop.
At Thomas Elementary, also in the Chicago Public Schools, Bryk and Schneider (2002)
also examined the role relations between community members. The student population consisted

17

of Mexican immigrants who were English language learners. The principal, Dr. Gonzalez,
aimed to bridge the gap between the home and school, and he looked to convert the monolingual
and bilingual school to a completely bilingual school that featured the whole language approach.
Trust relations were examined between the principal and teachers, school staff and parents, the
principal and the LSC, and teachers and the LSC; and among teachers.
As Dr. Gonzalez interacted with the parents, he used Chicago’s decentralization reform
as a catalyst to enlarge parental participation and to assist them in understanding his vision for
the school. He exhibited characteristics that led the parents to trust and support his vision. Dr.
Gonzalez’s commitment to education, his desire to bring forth the best structure and educational
programs for his students and parents, and his relationship with the parents demonstrated that he
exhibited respect, personal regard, competence, and integrity. However, the teachers had a
different outlook. For the teachers, they believed that the principal did not provide clear and
consistent messages about student discipline, his vision for the school, or his opinion regarding
individual teachers who were not supportive of his vision. Still, the parents had a different
perception; they believed he was a person who had a genuine personal regard for the well-being
of their children. They were appreciative that he extended himself to listen to their concerns and
ideals, and they considered him to be a very effective school leader.
Thomas Elementary was essentially two schools in one, monolingual and bilingual.
Division between the two groups of teachers was evident due to the principal providing
preferential treatment to individual teachers who supported his agenda. Those teachers received
support from the principal, and this caused many other teachers to feel vulnerable. Since the
principal did not acknowledge this discontentment, the division between the teachers grew
larger. The lack of personal regard that was demonstrated towards some of the teachers caused

18

their trust in the principal to diminish. Although there were distrust and strife between the
teachers, the parents had the utmost respect for the teachers at Thomas. Many parents described
the teachers as caring and welcoming, and they appreciated how they were made to feel
comfortable in the school setting. Although there was some tension between the parents and the
teachers, there was generally mutual respect between the two groups.
The role of relational trust is very important to all the members in a school community.
Relational trust is vital when a new reform is implemented, because members of the school
community must be able to trust that all of the members will display the characteristics needed
for there to be success. Bryk and Schneider’s study indicates that leadership behaviors can
impede or assist trust relations between teachers and principals.
How Classroom Observations Measure and Potentially Lead to Changes in Instruction
One main purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve instruction by developing teachers’
instructional ability and effectiveness (Papay, 2012). Many districts are using teacher evaluation
to drive teachers out of the profession when they could instead provide them with support to help
raise their performance. Ebmeier’s (2003) study tested a conceptual model to examine how
active principal supervision and organizational agency are linked in influencing teacher efficacy
and commitment to classroom improvement. The study provided evidence that when active
supervision is present, through specific feedback, encouraging words, emotional support, and
modeling positive experiences, more respect of and confidence in the principal are present.
Teachers were found to “take greater risks to improve their instruction, remain in the
teaching profession, and show more interest in building activities and goals” when they were
supported by both peers and the principal (Ebmeier, 2003, p.136). Productive collaboration
enabled teachers to communicate with peers about their content and pedagogy. Peers were

19

determined to be very important to teachers and how they shaped their view of the school
environment (Ebmeier, 2003). When principals allowed teachers to make decisions about their
classroom activities, supported their initiatives, encouraged collaboration among teachers,
provided feedback on classroom observations, and provided opportunities for teachers to observe
their peers for support and learning, teacher efficacy and teacher practice improved. Also,
several teachers in Burch and Spillane’s (2003) study attributed their students’ academic
improvement to working closely with their administrator and teachers after their classroom
observations.
Papay (2012) argued that an evaluation system should be a tool for continuous
instructional improvement; that is, it is necessary not only to “examine its reliability, validity,
and bias but also (to identify) the system’s prospects for driving instructional change” (p. 133).
Proponents of evaluation systems that include high-quality classroom observations point to their
potential value for improving instruction. Taylor and Tyler (2011) suggested that a well-designed
evaluation may provide useful knowledge for teachers in multiple ways. First, through formal
scoring and feedback, teachers can receive information concerning each domain. Second, the
evaluation can provide teachers with opportunities to become self-reflective. Third, during the
evaluation(s), teachers and administrators are provided a platform for conversing about effective
teacher practices. In Taylor and Tyler’s (2011) research in Cincinnati, they focused on
measuring the impact of practice-based performance evaluation on teacher effectiveness in
midcareer teachers in 2000-01. The results suggest that the effectiveness of individual teachers
improves during the school year when they are evaluated; on average, teachers performed 0.5
standard deviations higher on end-of-year math tests during the evaluation year than in previous

20

years. In sum, classroom observations that provide teachers with specific strengths and
weaknesses, as well as a supportive plan of action, can lead teachers to improve their instruction.
The Need for this Study
This review of literature indicates that there is an abundance of research on teacher
evaluation tools and how they affect educators in this new era of accountability. In particular,
there are studies of classroom observation supporting teachers’ efforts to change their practice.
However, there have been few studies of the characteristics of effective principal leadership in
the context of new approaches to teacher evaluation. This study examined how principal
leadership promotes teacher learning and changes in instruction through the teacher evaluation
process.
In my study, I identified the characteristics of effective leadership in the context of new
approaches to teacher evaluation by conducting case studies of principals and teachers in two
settings. By utilizing multiple data sources, I was able to analyze data on principals and teachers
to provide a thorough description of educators’ experiences with teacher evaluation, focusing in
particular on the possible effects that new approaches to teacher evaluation have on teachers, the
role of principal leadership in shaping teachers’ responses to reform, and how classroom
observations measure and potentially lead to changes in instruction.
Implications and Conclusion from the Literature Review
Building trusting relationships between the principals and teachers may help all
participants gain content knowledge and social connections that assist in implementing and
delivering reform in ways that can lead to significant gains for principals, teachers, and their
students.

21

Principal leadership is a major factor that can help to improve teacher and student
knowledge, especially with the districts that hold administrators accountable for the instructional
practices in their building. Schools are constantly called upon to improve their teachers’
practices, and this may be accomplished when there is a strong leader who has personal regard,
respect, integrity, and competence. With these characteristics, clear expectations can be
communicated, teachers may voluntarily become involved in improvement efforts, teachers can
begin to build confidence in their abilities and their leader’s abilities, positive relationships can
form, and students can learn more. There have been numerous empirical studies on the
characteristics of effective principal leadership; however, there has been little research on the
characteristics of effective principal leadership in the context of new approaches to teacher
evaluation.
As schools and districts dedicate significant resources toward the implementation of new
teacher evaluation systems, research is needed that examines how principal-teacher relational
trust can affect the role that principal leadership plays in teachers’ responses to new approaches
to teacher evaluation and how teachers interpret and respond to the new approaches to teacher
evaluation.

22

Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework
Relational trust theory provided a theoretical framework and a set of tools for analyzing
the many factors that are likely to influence the ways in which teachers make sense of and
respond to new teacher evaluation systems. “Relational trust views the social exchanges of
schooling as organized around a distinct set of role relationships: teachers with students, teachers
with other teachers, teachers with parents and with their school principal” (Bryk & Schneider,
2002, p. 20). Relational trust is understood through the interactions of a set of mutual members
in a school setting. Relational trust provided a framework for analyzing each member within the
community to determine if the members’ behaviors led them to feel other community members
were trustworthy.
This study primarily focused on how the following factors shaped teachers’ responses to
the new teacher evaluation system: (a) principal leadership, (b) principal leadership behaviors,
and (c) principal-teacher trust. In addition, the study considered how teachers made sense of and
responded to possible challenges associated with the new teacher evaluation system.
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) described the issue of interdependence in a trust
relationship. They observed that where there is reliance on one another, two or more parties are
vulnerable to each other. Where vulnerability does not exist, trust is not needed. They defined
trust as “one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that
the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, (e) open” (p.556).
Although these features are independent of one another, they are interrelated and equally
supporting.

23

Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003) found a positive connection between high levels of
trust in a school and a high level of teacher-perceived efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief of an
individual regarding self-capacity to achieve the desired level of achievement (Bandura, 1997).
“When teachers trust each other, it is more likely that they will develop greater confidence in
their collective ability to be successful at meeting their goals” (Tschannen-Moran, 2004, p.127).
Lack of trust in the school setting, however, causes discomfort, leaving people feeling ill at ease.
Since learning is a cooperative process, lack of trust negatively affects cooperation and teachers’
tendency toward collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
Having established the function and importance of trust in schools, the literature also
provides guidance regarding how school leaders and other members of a school community can
develop and maintain trusting relationships. Bryk and Schneider (2002) described relational trust
in terms of enabling conditions at an individual level and an organizational level. Individual
conditions that are important to fostering relational trust among individuals include respect,
personal regard, competence in core role responsibilities, and personal integrity. They believe
that respect requires social discourse that takes place within the school community, and includes
sincerely listening to and appreciating the opinions of others. When members of a school
community extend themselves beyond their job requirements, they display personal regard for
their colleagues and their profession. Teachers recognize that other community members play a
significant core role in meeting their responsibilities in order for everyone to achieve desired
goals. Lastly, personal integrity is the belief or awareness that a moral-ethical perspective guides
one’s work.
One of the main organizational factors that may help foster relational trust is principal
leadership. Principal leadership is important for establishing both respect and personal regard

24

through acknowledgement of obstacles that teachers may face, as well as providing assistance
needed by teachers to achieve their desired goals (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). My research study
focused on relational trust and its influence in developing collaborative working relationships in
a school organization. I examined the role of relational trust in two schools in one district as the
principals determined the role that they played and the teachers interpreted and responded to new
approaches to teacher evaluation. Relational trust provided a framework for analyzing the
experiences of six teachers and two principals as well as the principals’ leadership.
In this study, I used relational trust to examine how teachers and principals were able to
build respect, display personal regard, and show their competence and integrity as they
interpreted and responded to the new teacher evaluation system. Relational trust theory also
drew my attention to each teacher and principal to examine how they were able to navigate
through the new teacher evaluation system to support teachers’ efforts to change their teaching
practice.
Relational trust was used to analyze principals’ and teachers’ experiences with new
approaches to teacher evaluation to gain a deeper understanding of their enactment of state and
district mandates. This scope allowed me to understand the principals’ and teachers’ experiences
(see Appendix A). Appendix A is based on my finding on how the principal and teachers were
the center of the school community and how their experiences led them to interpret and respond
to new approaches to teacher evaluation as well as the role that principals played in teachers’
responses to these new approaches. I used a concentric circle to represent each component that
helped build principal-teacher relational-trust. Principal-teacher relational trust is placed in the
outer circle as the inner components: principal leadership behaviors, active supervision, teacher
collaboration, and clear vision all work together to create and sustain the relationship between

25

the principal and the teachers. I used this model in the current study to explain how the various
factors (i.e., principal leadership and principal-teacher trust) worked together to impact the new
approaches to teacher evaluation.
Relational trust assisted my data analysis by allowing me to focus on how the principals
and teachers collectively and individually interpreted and responded to new approaches to
teacher evaluation and how principals’ leadership skills shaped the teachers’ responses to the
new teacher evaluation system. I hypothesized that the principals played a significant role in
shaping the teachers’ interpretation and responses to the new teacher evaluation system.
Principal Leadership
Principals who possess content knowledge can provide substantial feedback before and
after evaluations to help influence teachers’ instructional growth (Youngs, 2007). Teachers need
and desire leaders who can support their learning and understand how they and their students’
best learn. When principals are active participants in the learning and teaching of their staff, this
can lead to improvement in teacher practice, thus improving student achievement and
communication between the staff.
Commitment to reform, openness to innovation, and involvement in improvement efforts
reinforce to teachers that they have a leader who believes that they are worth supporting, and that
they are an important stakeholder in the educational setting (Burch & Spillane, 2003). Showing
that they are committed to reform, principals need to make sure that their teachers have the
resources, especially knowledge and supplies necessary to be successful. When principals are
open to innovation, they are likely to value teachers’ insights on the curriculum, providing them
the opportunity to share their expertise during staff meetings and professional development
sessions (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001).

26

Principal leadership also helps to foster social trust between themselves and staff
members in order to provide a platform for collaboration (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Leaders
know that when teachers engage in peer observation and feedback, opening up their knowledge
and practice to be examined by their colleagues, they are able to learn about their colleagues’
teaching practices about and their own practice.
Principal Leadership Behaviors
Principal leadership behaviors that allow principals to create positive school cultures and
learning environments have often been the subject of investigation. There are numerous
behaviors that indicate that a principal possesses positive leadership skills. My theoretical
framework focused on the following: (a) clear vision, (b) active supervision, and (c)
collaborative leadership.
Clear vision. The school leader develops a vision of learning that encompasses the
welfare of all involved. The vision should send a clear message of what the principal and the
other community members envision the school to be in the future. If it is indeed a shared vision,
then values, beliefs, tools for establishing goals, and how people are valued and consistently
communicated by the school leader and all of the members involved.
Smith and Andrews (1989) explained that "communication of vision is perhaps the most
important way for a principal to exert effective leadership—to leave no doubt about school
priorities" (p. 16). Principals know what to expect for the school, and they believe that others
will become a part of the vision that has been laid out before them. Perhaps principals can do
nothing more important for the members of their school community than to create a process for
building and revising their vision for the school. Traditionally, schools have not been places
where adults can easily experience the collegial relationships that are essential to leadership and

27

teacher empowerment. An effective school principal "demonstrates a strong interest in
promoting collegiality and shared leadership, an interest in shifting the norms of the school's
culture from the traditional to more collaborative ways of working together" (Owens, 2004, p.
274).
Active supervision. When principals actively provide supervision to their teachers, this
may lead many to improve their instruction. This process involves feedback, encouragement,
emotional support, reinforcement, and modeling experiences for teachers (Ebmeier, 2003). As
the principal observes the lessons and shares their findings in conferences with the teachers, asks
questions of the teachers regarding their students’ development, offers suggestions, and
completes a follow-up observation to observe the suggestions in action, these activities can lead
to the improvement of teachers’ instruction (Coburn, 2005). When there is a visible leader who
exhibits caring attributes regarding the needs of their teachers, one can predict that the teachers
may respond to the reforms in a positive manner, which may help them develop respect for and
confidence in the principal. “Leaders who interact directly with teachers about classroom
teaching and learning understood what their teachers needed in material and instruction and
(were) able to provide that support for them” (Burch & Spillane, 2003, p. 528-529). Coburn
(2005) described many of the same positive principal-teacher relational outcomes, and she also
believed that teachers were most likely to shift their thinking when the principal encouraged
teacher learning and provided opportunities for them to talk and learn with their colleagues about
instruction.
Teacher collaboration. With teachers facing multiple reforms designed to improve
student achievement, principals have typically offered them opportunities to collaborate with
their colleagues. Access to resources and expertise can be provided through colleagues as

28

teachers collaborate to determine how they will best accomplish their assigned tasks (Coburn,
2001). When teachers collaborate, they share experiences and knowledge that can lead to
instructional improvement; therefore, one can speculate that student learning will be one of the
benefits of collaboration (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007). Teachers begin to
explore their own thoughts and interactions with students, curriculum, and instruction during
collaboration, and this can significantly contribute to the teachers' success (Stevenson, 2004).
Social relationships between the principal and teachers can influence how well teachers
function, particularly in periods of reform and change (McLaughlin, 1993; Bryk & Schneider;
2002). Teachers can use their school community to problem-solve, support each other personally
and professionally, coach peers, build team-teaching structures, and structure classroom
observations for and with their peers (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996).
Methodology
This study used a cross-case design (Yin, 2003). Focused teacher interviews
(conversational) were the primary method of data collection (see Appendix B for protocol
questions). Data was collected in the spring and summer of 2013. I focused on the experiences
of principals and teachers in two suburban elementary schools in Michigan, examining
educators’ experiences with new approaches to teacher evaluation. Each case was treated
separately, and I then aggregated my findings across the cases.
I examined how educators’ experiences with teacher evaluation were affected by the
district’s contractual agreement and the district’s observation evaluation instrument, Danielson’s
Framework for Teaching (2013). The results are reported in the form of case studies (Merriam,
1988).

29

Description of the Study and Research Questions
The principals and teachers in this study had to interpret and respond to the new teacher
evaluation system in their district where the stakes were much higher than they had been in the
past. Principals had to redefine their roles as leaders, and teachers had to respond with
instructional practices that would result in improved student achievement.
This study was designed to examine how educators interpret and respond to new
approaches to teacher evaluation, and the roles that principals play in how teachers respond to
the new approaches. The study also examined the ways in which classroom observations can
support teachers’ efforts to change their teaching.
Principals and teachers need to have a deeper understanding of what is expected of them
throughout the school year as they prepare to observe and be evaluated using the new Danielson
Framework (2013) for evaluations, while at the same time being responsible for implementing
the Common Core Standards. Meanwhile, principals and teachers should have open and honest
conversations about instruction and student learning. Studying how these educators interpret and
respond to new approaches to teacher evaluation can help educators in other districts (a)
implement effective teacher evaluation practices and (b) provide teachers with the pedagogical
and content knowledge needed to support student growth.
The focus research questions are the following:
1. What role does principal leadership play in teachers’ responses to new approaches to
teacher evaluation?
2. How do elementary teachers interpret and respond to new approaches to teacher
evaluation?

30

Site and Participant Description
I focused on six elementary teachers, grades 3-5, and two principals in two schools
(Addison and Stuvenberry) in the same Midwestern school district, (Stafford). The names of the
individuals, schools, and district are all pseudonyms. These individuals were chosen through
purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990 in Maxwell, 2005). I chose to study teachers within this
particular school district because I taught in this district from 2001 to 2010, and I have
professional relationships with many teachers within the district; thus, I had full access to the
materials and personnel that my study required. I examined how these educators interpreted and
responded to new approaches to teacher evaluation.
All of the teachers in the study were female; four were African American and two were
Caucasian. There were also one male principal and one female principal who participated. The
male principal was African American, and the female principal was Caucasian. The teachers had
a minimum of 15 years as educators and the principals had a minimum of 20 years in education
and a minimum of five years as an administrator. The teachers had prior knowledge and
experiences with being evaluated in their previous and current school districts. They were aware
of the expectations that parents, students, principals, and the district had of them as experts. All
teacher participants had been formally evaluated using the new teacher evaluation system at least
once, and had earned effective or highly effective ratings on their evaluation.
Participants at Addison. At Addison, there were three female teachers who
participated in my study; two were African-American and one was Caucasian. All had been
certified and teaching for a combined 75 years within different school districts. During the
rd

study, Pam taught a 3 -grade, self-contained class. (In a self-contained class, the teacher is
responsible for teaching math, social studies, science, and language arts.) She had been teaching
31

in public education for 15 years in the same school district, where she had taught grades 3-5.
th-

During the study, Fran taught 5 grade; she only taught English Language Arts (ELA) and social
studies. She had been teaching in public education for 33 years in two school districts, where she
had taught grades 1-5. She had taught 18 years in Stafford School District, where the study was
th

conducted, and for the last 10 years she had taught 5 -grade. During the study, Debra taught
th

5 -grade; she only taught ELA and science. She had been teaching in public education for 27
years in two school districts, including 17 years in the Stafford School District, where she had
taught grades K-5.
Todd, a male African-American, had been an educator for approximately 23 years. He
was the principal at Addison Elementary in 2012-13 and had served in this role for two years.
Prior to his arrival at Addison, he was employed at another school district for six years as a
middle school administrator, and he had served as an elementary principal for four years. He
rd

started his career working as a 3 -grade teacher in another school district for nine years. His
responsibilities at Addison were to oversee 40 staff members, manage the school’s budget and
curriculum, and serve as an instructional leader. He also had to oversee day-to-day operations,
and meet with parents, teachers, and the personnel at the central office.
Participants at Stuvenberry. At Stuvenberry, there were three female teachers who
participated in my study; two were African-American and one was Caucasian. All had been
certified and teaching for a combined 54 years within different school districts. During the
rd

study, Leslie taught a 3

-grade, self-contained class.

rd

She had taught 3 -grade for the first time

in 2011-12. She had been teaching in public education for 24 years in three school districts,
including 15 years in Stafford School District, where she had taught grades K-8. During the
32

th

study, Martha taught a 5 -grade, self-contained class; she taught science and social studies. She
had been teaching in public education for 23 years in two school districts including 12 years in
th

Stafford School District, where she had taught grades 5-8. During the study, Sandra taught a 4 grade, self-contained class. She had been teaching in public education for 16 years in Stafford
School District. She had taught grades 2-4 and had served as a literacy coach for four years.
Sherry, a female Caucasian, had been an educator for approximately 20 years. She was
the principal at Stuvenberry Elementary and had served in this role for two years. Previously,
she had served as an assistant principal at a K-8 school and an alternative high school in the
district, as the district’s English Second Language (ESL) director, and as the district’s Special
Education supervisor. She had taught grades 4-5 for 14 years. Her responsibilities at
Stuvenberry were to oversee the maintenance of the building, serve as an instructional leader,
provide support for the staff, address student discipline, and maintain positive parent
relationships.
Addison and Stuvenberry Elementary Schools. Addison Elementary was a Title I, K-5
suburban neighborhood school with a student population of 363 in 2012-13. The students were
96.1% Black, non-Hispanic; less than 3% White, non-Hispanic; and less than 1% Asian/Pacific
Islander. At the school, 68.5% of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 191
students were male, and 172 students were female. Title I is a federally-funded program that
provides services to schools based on student economic needs, including extra academic help to
students who are identified as in need of additional support. Students who qualify due to their
low test scores are pulled out of their regular classroom and are taught by a certified teacher
approximately twice a week. Tutoring and summer school are also offered to the qualifying
students at no charge.
33

The school offered art, music, library, and physical education. A literacy coach, whose
sole job was to provide reading intervention with the five lowest achieving students in each class
or within each grade level, assisted with Tier 2 of Response to Intervention (RTI, an entity of
Differentiated Instruction). RTI is an approach used to help students meet academic
achievement standards through early identification of those whose academic needs place them at
risk. RTI ensures that resources and interventions are appropriately targeted to serve all
struggling learners as soon as possible through high-quality instruction (Walker-Dalhouse,
Risko, Esworthy, Grasley, Kaisler, McIlvain & Stephan, 2009).
The second school in the study, Stuvenberry Elementary, is located in the same district,
approximately 2.5 miles from Addison. This school was also a Title I, K-5 suburban
neighborhood school with a student population of 369 in 2012-13. The students were 96.75%
Black, non-Hispanic; less than 2% White, non-Hispanic; less than 1% American Indian; and less
than 1% Asian/Pacific Islander. At the school, 69.6% of the students were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch, 182 students were male, and 187 students were female. As with Addison,
Stuvenberry also offered art, music, library, and physical education. There was also a literacy
coach who worked at this school.
Researcher’s Background. I am an African American female who has taught for 14
years in grades 1-5. From 1997-2001, I taught at an urban Midwestern school district and from
2001-2010, I taught at a suburban Midwestern school district. In 2010-2011, I took a literacy
coach position for one year within the urban Midwestern school where I began my teaching
career. Currently I am a professor at a Midwestern private college where I teach in the
Education Department.

34

Data Collection
This study used qualitative research methods. The findings were reported in the form of
a cross-case study (Yin, 2003) containing analyses of narrative examples of how educators
interpreted and responded to new approaches to teacher evaluation in two schools located in one
district. Teacher-focused interviews were the primary source of data collection. In addition, as
part of the study, I analyzed the district’s observation evaluation instrument (i.e., Danielson’s
Framework for Teaching (2013) and the district’s teacher labor contract.
Data was collected in spring and summer of 2013. I was responsible for conducting the
interviews and compiling the teacher data and all artifacts. The teachers and principals in this
study were asked questions about their educational backgrounds, their teaching and/or leadership
positions, their school’s demographics (i.e., students socio-economic status (SES) and
race/ethnicity), and the number of staff members. For the study, each teacher was interviewed
once or twice, depending on the information gathered during the first session.
I conducted a pilot study in March 2013, during which I interviewed one teacher and one
principal. The research interviews for my dissertation took place in the spring and summer of
2013, and they lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. The interviews included focused interview
questions, such as “Do you meet with each teacher/principal before and/or after you observe
them/have been observed?” and “Could you describe the strengths and weaknesses of the new
approach to teacher evaluation in your school or district?” (Appendix B). Subsequent questions
were designed to get the interviewee to discuss various topics in more depth. I asked questions
for clarification or to probe their thinking about the new approaches to teacher evaluation. All
interviews were audio-taped and transcribed using thematic analysis, which helped me identify
themes and patterns using inductive reasoning (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

35

In the interviews, educators were asked a series of questions (see Appendix C for the
Interview Protocol) to learn about how they interpreted and responded to the new teacher
evaluation system, the role that the principal played in teachers’ responses to new approaches to
teacher evaluation, ways in which classroom observations supported teachers’ efforts to change
their teaching, and how they dealt with the conflicts (if any) between the new approaches to
teacher evaluation and the existing curricula (Clark & Peterson, 1984). The interviews lasted
from 45 to 60 minutes. Each interview was audio-recorded.
Artifacts
I analyzed the district’s teacher labor contract and its classroom observation instrument.
Data Analysis
When I began this study, my intended purpose was to investigate what role, if any,
principal leadership played in teachers’ responses to new approaches to teacher evaluation, and
how elementary teachers interpreted and responded to new approaches to teacher evaluation. I
was also interested in principal-teacher relational trust and their experiences as they interacted in
the workplace. I chose to collect my data through oral interviews. I transcribed the interviews
with help from a colleague. As the interviews were transcribed, I began tracking the similarities
and differences as to how the teachers at Addison and Stuvenberry interpreted and responded to
new approaches to teacher evaluation. I also tracked the similarities and differences between the
principals as to the role they played as they too interpreted and implemented the new teacher
evaluation system.
As I began to analyze the data, I had to return to several participants to ask additional
questions, which I added to my principal and teacher interview protocol questionnaire in May
2013, after my oral dissertation proposal defense. After reviewing the data again, nine codes

36

emerged that included experiences that had been mentioned in the interviews. There were also
several codes that included sub-codes. The initial list of codes included: (a) principal leadership,
(b) the Charlotte Danielson Framework, (c) walk-throughs, (d) data from the teacher evaluation
system, (e) VAMs, (f) strengths and weaknesses of the new teacher evaluation system, (g)
teachers’ perspectives on the new teacher evaluation system, (h) changes in teaching practice due
to the new teacher evaluation system, and (i) school context. My data was also reviewed by a
scholar to confirm that there were not any codes or sub-codes that I may have overlooked. I
reviewed the data again, so that I could begin to identify codes that could be removed, due to
insufficient evidence, or any codes that I could combine that referred to the same data. After
combining codes that seemed related, I began to write memos about my draft findings for each
code and sub-code. The memos were also reviewed by another scholar to determine if additional
analysis of the data was needed. As the memos were written, we then determined whether there
was sufficient evidence to continue with any of the codes or sub-codes that would be included in
my results chapters.
Initially in my dissertation proposal, my theoretical framework was supported by
sensemaking theory. However, the memos that I wrote from my data eventually led me to
consider relational trust theory (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). My data revealed many factors that
shaped the role that principal leadership played in teachers’ responses to new approaches to
teacher evaluation, and how teachers interpreted and responded to new approaches to teacher
evaluation.
Establishing Validity
I took three steps to establish validity in this study: I collected multiple sources of data,
employed a multiple case design, and received feedback through peer review (Young, Jones, &

37

Low, 2011). The multiple sources of data supported the validity of the interview data. A crosscase study (Yin, 2003) containing analysis of interview data of two case studies was part of the
study. One principal and one teacher were interviewed in March 2013 to ascertain if the initial
questions for the interviews needed to be changed, and to ensure that multiple subjects were
needed in different settings. Finally, peer review was provided by colleagues to determine if
additional subjects and follow up surveys or questions were needed.

38

Chapter 3
The Role Principal Leadership Plays in Teachers’ Responses to the New Teacher
Evaluation (TE)
In this chapter, I address the first research question: “What role does principal leadership
play in teachers’ responses to new approaches to teacher evaluation?” In particular, I describe
how the two principals in the study provided information to their teaching staffs about the new
teacher evaluation instrument, the Charlotte Danielson Framework. In addition, I examine how
the principals implemented this new instrument, and I consider how their implementation was
associated with principal-teacher trust.
Trust is a small word that has major implications, especially if the trust has not been
developed, or if there is mistrust already established. Everyone within a school community is
given, or they inherit, a role that others expect them to fulfill. When the roles are neglected or
dismissed, the school community may not function as properly as it would if everyone met or
exceeded the requirements. Principals depend on teachers, and vice-versa, to make sure that
schools run efficiently, and when one of the two parties cannot be depended on the other for
various reasons, the structure of the school suffers.
Bryk and Schneider (2002) studied relational trust in schools. They examined four
categories in their article under the subheading Criteria for Discernment, which were Respect,
Competence, Personal Regard for Others, and Integrity. They believe that members in school
settings analyze the behaviors of others using all four criteria, and if one criterion has
deficiencies, then the trust for the entire relationship may be compromised. I used the above
categories in my study to examine carefully the relationship between principals and teachers as
they continued to implement the new teacher evaluation system. Despite the fact that the

39

principal is the leader of a school, I believe that teachers, because they typically know how a
building functions and without them the building is just an empty shell, bear almost as much of
the responsibility as principals to ensure that trust is present in the relationship with their
principal.
When one speaks of or hears the word trust, they may immediately think of the
following: (1) a confidant who is a close friend or family member; (2) a bond that is unbreakable
between two people; or (3) a company that has been in business for many years, has a great
reputation, and guarantees the quality of their product(s). Yet, I looked at trust using four lenses
that deal with the beliefs and observable behaviors of principals and teachers. If the public were
to be polled and asked how they perceive the relationship between a principal and teachers, many
may presume that these individuals have mutual respect for one another’s job, and that they are
always willing to do and show the students and adults in the school what is right in every
situation. They may also state that the adults in the school community work together to enhance
the learning experiences of the students. However, these conditions may not always be present.
In some schools, the relationship between the principal and the teachers is characterized by
distrust.
Principal Leadership
School leadership is a challenging role in which one must depend on his/her knowledge,
prior professional experience, and professional relationships to work effectively with students,
teachers, parents, and others. With the many job requirements that principals have, there is a
possibility that they interpret the same information differently, implement the same policies
differently, and enact their leadership skills in different ways.

40

How Principals Prepared Their Staff with Information on the New TE
In August of each year, principals return to their assigned job site to face the various
challenges that await them. In 2011-12 and 2012-13, changes in teacher evaluation were one of
those challenges. Whether they are novice or veteran principals, they must devise a plan to assist
the teachers’ understanding of what is required of them by the state and the district; this must
happen on the first day that the staff reports. The two principals in this study, Todd and Sherry,
are in the same school district, where they received the same information regarding the new
teacher evaluation system at summer meetings arranged by the district for school administrators.
However, their approach to disseminating the information to their staff at times varied. So,
exactly how were principals preparing their staff to undertake this massive task?
The school district summons all staff members for a half-day mandatory meeting at a
designated location on the first day of the new school year. This is where the superintendent, the
human resource director, and other personnel communicate important changes to everyone.
Once the staff has reported back to their assigned locations, another meeting takes place between
the staff and the principal. During this meeting, principals take time to introduce new staff
members; review state, district, and building policies; disperse grade assignments and class
rosters; and provide other pertinent information.
Todd and Sherry were provided the same training and materials by the district to assist
them with becoming knowledgeable about the Charlotte Danielson Framework (CDF). As
leaders in their buildings, their responsibility was to disseminate the materials and their
knowledge to the teachers. There were several similarities and some differences in how they
prepared their staff to understand the pre-and post-conferences, the five domains they were to be

41

evaluated in, the walk-throughs, and the other materials they were going to use to evaluate the
effectiveness of their teachers.
Teachers from both schools indicated that their principal prepared them through a staff
meeting that took place at the beginning of the school year. Both principals provided their staff
members with information and the opportunity to ask questions about the teacher evaluation
process. My data indicated that Todd, the principal at Addison Elementary, was not as thorough
as Sherry, the principal at Stuvenberry Elementary, when he took his staff through the required
materials. Pam, one of the teachers at Addison, reported “We have a meeting when we first
return for that school year and the principal told us everything that he had learned about the new
system at the beginning of the school year.”
The teachers at Stuvenberry Elementary explained how their principal informed them
about the new teacher evaluation process. Leslie stated,
Everything the principal was given, we were given as well: what each domain
looked like, what the administrators were going to be looking for. Even though
everything is spelled out in the documents, the way it is written leaves a lot of
room for subjectivity.
Even though Sherry and Todd both attended the same training sessions, she deemed it
necessary not just to review the materials, but also to analyze with her staff each section of the
document in order for them to understand what was inside. Martha added the following to
support Leslie’s testimony as to how Sherry prepared her staff not only to become
knowledgeable, but also to gain in-depth understanding of what the district was expecting from
the teachers:

42

The approach; well we had to, as a staff we had some dialogue of the changes prior to all
of this happening. The principal, as far as on a building level, as a staff, we went over the
information that was sent from the state and we had to observe exactly what it was for
each grade level and certification areas.
The teachers were asked to discuss what each criterion would look like at each grade
level and in special subject classes: gym, art, music. Teachers can be moved after the fourth
week count in a school year; this determines the approximate pupil population, which determines
how many teachers and support staff are needed in the district. Because the teachers may be
assigned another grade or special subject to teach, they need to be prepared for their first
evaluation by reviewing not only the criteria for their current grade or special subject, but for all
the grades and special subjects. This is to their advantage, especially if they have to relocate to
another school where the principal may not provide their staff the opportunity to schedule their
evaluations in advance.
Another topic that was discussed at the meetings was the scheduling of the observations.
There was a time when the teachers’ union had a voice in the teacher evaluation process. The
union made sure that the principals provided teachers with prior notice when they were to be
observed. As of the 2012-13 school year, that was no longer the case. The union does not have
any authority as to how the district implements the new teacher evaluation system because it is
now a state-mandated law. This leaves the school district in charge of following the state’s
guidelines, not the union’s. Nevertheless, both principals still afforded their teachers the
opportunity to schedule the day and time of their formal observations. Again, this is not an
official union policy; the principals extended the courtesy to the teachers, to provide them a

43

chance to be fully prepared prior to the evaluation. This is an example of how the principals
built trust with their teachers.
In the informational meetings, the principals exhibited some differences in how they
dispersed the information to their staff. Sherry took her staff through the rankings that they could
receive from the evaluations: highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective.
Documentation was shared with Sherry’s staff that helped them to see explicitly the criteria for
each ranking mentioned above. Furthermore, she made them aware of the “district’s
expectations.” My data does not indicate whether Todd provided his staff with extensive
knowledge of the rankings. Todd did advise his staff of the district’s expectations; however, the
terminology he used was “what I will be looking for.” One could ask whether he was following
the district’s agenda or his own personal agenda. Todd’s personal regard for his staff was not as
clear as Sherry’s; she extended herself and her knowledge to ensure that her staff received as
much information about the new teacher evaluation system as she could provide.
Another difference between the two principals was how they introduced the components
of the walk-throughs. Sherry explained that at the beginning of the school year, she provides indepth details about the walk-throughs that the district added. She stated,
Also I showed them a model of the paper template for the walk-throughs and what is on
my iPad and what I am looking for as I walk through the classrooms, so they can see
what I am clicking on. I also show them the results of what I have seen.
The district used the software Teach Scape; the software tracks the data for each teacher’s walkthroughs, and the principals are able to download reports, as well as the final reports that will
calculate an overall score from all the walk-throughs. The principals are then to use the final
walk-through score, along with the final observation score, to produce an overall final score for

44

each formal observation. This is in contrast to Todd, who offered no specifications as to what he
reviewed with his staff other than the teacher evaluation materials. Also, Todd did not provide
much insight about the walk-throughs. In addition, he did not mention that the district used iPads
during the observations, and he did not discuss the Teach Scape software the district required the
principals to use to track the data for the teachers’ walk-throughs.
There was so much information that the principals had to absorb, not only for their own
understanding, but to be able to convey that information successfully to their staff; this was
especially important because the teachers’ careers depended on knowing all of the components
of the evaluation process. This task added to the list of principals’ responsibilities. Again, if the
principals are unsure of any part of the evaluation process, this could cause some uneasiness
between themselves and the teachers, and possibly lead to distrust.
Sherry acknowledged to her staff that she lacked competence when the district first
implemented the new teacher evaluation process. She stated,
I am more knowledgeable about the teacher evaluation system than I was last year. We
(the principals) did get extensive training at the end of the school year, in June last year2012. But that was after a full year of using it. But we all felt that we could have used
some more training before, but we kind of jumped in feet first. On a scale of 1-10, I am
at a 7 or 8 now, but we are still learning; still working through it together. We are finding
that no matter how great a rubric you have, it is very subjective and we are really trying
to get consistency with all of that—all of the administrators with the issue of fairness.
Martha was aware of Sherry’s lack of complete competence with the new teacher evaluation
process during the first year of implementation. One could conclude that this may have been
communicated to the staff by Sherry, which showed her integrity, respect, and personal regard

45

for her staff members. “This first year she wasn’t quite sure about everything, but she went and
found out the correct information and she corrected the information and informed us on exactly
what we were supposed to be doing,” stated Martha. Sherry displayed integrity and honesty in
relation to her deficiencies. She was not concerned that her staff would judge her as she
continued learning about the evaluation process in order to pass on the correct information which
would ultimately deepen her knowledge of her teachers. The evidence presented above supports
that Sherry extended great effort to build trust with the teachers. Also, this additional knowledge
by the principal and the teachers would likely increase student achievement.
With regards to Todd, he did admit that “There is a lot to learn this year.” This may
convey that he was still learning, and as he learned, hopefully he would pass that knowledge on
to his staff. My data might lead to the conclusion that Todd provided minimal information to his
staff concerning the new teacher evaluation system, even though both principals received the
same training. It may not be due to his not wanting to help the teachers, but to a lack of
competence on his part to realize the knowledge he needed in order to convey the information
thoroughly. This is also evidence of Sherry’s efforts to build trust with her teachers.
The first step for the principals was to prepare their staff to understand the responsibilities
of all parties involved in the new teacher evaluation process. Sherry and Todd both showed
competence as they introduced the procedure of the CDF and their job duties, yet Sherry’s
knowledge of the CDF was greater than Todd’s as she provided her staff in-depth information
for a greater understanding of the CDF. Todd demonstrated less personal regard for his staff
than Sherry. Sherry extended herself more than Todd did as she did everything that she could to
prepare her staff for the new TE. Integrity was another area where Sherry overshadowed Todd.
She was characterized as honest and trustworthy by her staff, yet Todd was characterized as

46

untrustworthy and dishonest by his staff. As Todd and Sherry finished introducing their teachers
to the new reform, they also prepared them for the next step. The second step was the
implementation process of the evaluation, which I describe in the next section.
How Principals Implement the New TE
There were similarities and differences in how the principals implemented the new
teacher evaluation system. They discussed how they were going to schedule their observations,
the amount of time they would reserve to observe each teacher, the CDF materials, and the preand post-conferences.
Scheduling/time of the observations. As mentioned in the earlier section, both
principals extended the courtesy either to inform the teachers ahead of time when they would be
observed, or to provide them the opportunity to select when they would like to be observed
within a certain time frame. This showed the integrity of the principals, which helped promote
trust among themselves and their teachers. Their actions indicate that they wanted to provide
time to their teachers in order for them to plan an effective lesson that displayed their
competence, which could help increase their effectiveness ranking. The principals continuing to
allow the teachers to sign up for their observations is an example of how they displayed personal
regard for the teachers as they extended themselves beyond their job requirements.
Even though the union was no longer involved in making decisions about the new teacher
evaluation system, and therefore the principals no longer had to let teachers know when their
formal observation was planned, the principals still afforded their teachers the opportunity to
schedule their formal observations. Sherry explained, “The observations are scheduled I think
per contract, but we don’t have to do that anymore.” As mentioned by Pam at Addison
Elementary, “Compared to teacher friends I have in other districts, I appreciate the fact that you

47

know when it is coming. Some others have said their principal just showed up and it wasn’t
what they were looking to show.” Leslie, who taught at Stuvenberry Elementary, also added
that some principals would tell you the day and the time of their observations. My data indicates
that Todd and Sherry scheduled the observations in a similar way. These are additional examples
of how the principals promoted trust with their teachers.
The school district dictated how many formal observations the principals had to conduct
each year of each teacher. My data revealed that due to the amount of walk-throughs the
principals were required to carry out, the teachers believed that two formal observations were
sufficient for their principal to determine the level of their teaching performance. The majority
believed that being formally observed twice for a time period of 45-60 minutes was sufficient.
However, this was not the sentiment of the teachers at Addison. Pam at Addison had a strong
opinion concerning the way her principal handled the amount of time he reserved for her
observations.
I don’t believe that two formal observations are sufficient. Maybe if he stayed from the
beginning to the entire end of the lesson, I would feel differently. He misses a lot,
either because he came in late or left early. Now someone can come in and observe for a
short period of time and know that you know your subject, have classroom management,
etc, but for documentation purposes and when my job is on the line, no.
That was not the case at Stuvenberry, where none of the teachers had negative remarks when it
came to Sherry reserving the appropriate amount of time to observe their lessons. This was the
only difference between the two principals on this topic that I found.
Use of CDF materials. The principals used the mandated materials as they were
intended to be used; both completed two formal observations per teacher in their building. Both

48

acknowledged that they were still in the process of learning how to use effectively the evaluation
tools. Todd spoke about how in district workshops they were learning not to be pre-judgmental
towards teachers during the observations, and to look only at the instruction that the teachers
were providing the students at that moment. Sherry acknowledged that the evaluation system
was being tweaked. In addition,
We are finding that no matter how great a rubric you have, it is very subjective and we
are really trying to get consistency across the border with all of that; all of the
administrators with the issue of fairness.
The teachers understood that the principals were learning as they received the new information.
Another similarity was that none of the teachers criticized their principal for not using the
evaluation tools correctly.
Pre-observation conference. My data indicated that the principals implemented the preobservation conferences with their teachers in similar ways. The pre-observation conferences,
which are part of the CDF policy, are mandatory for the principal and teacher to attend before
each observation. During this conference, the teacher must submit the lesson they plan to teach
during the observation. The principal and teacher discuss the lesson and questions can be raised
about the lesson, the teacher’s methods that he/she will use to develop instruction, the type of
assessment(s) being used, and other pertinent information from either person.
The teachers during this meeting are afforded the opportunity to share with the principal
any concerns they may have about students’ behavior and achievement levels, special
accommodations, and any other relevant information the principal should be aware of before the
observation. The teachers in the study indicated that the principals provided support within the
pre-conference meetings. The teachers at Addison all provided similar accounts about the

49

discussions during these meetings. They liked the idea that they were supported by the principal
as they reviewed their lesson with him, and that he wanted to know how they were going to
accomplish the goals of the lesson, if there were any students who had difficulties, and if they
had any other concerns. This is the time he had designated to understand the lesson and ask
questions before the formal observation. Again, these examples clearly show how Todd
promoted trust with his teachers.
There was also similar evidence from the teachers at Stuvenberry that their principal used
the pre-conference meetings to support the teachers and to listen sincerely to any concerns that
they had about the students or the lesson prior to the formal observation. Leslie stated,
You list everything that the evaluator will see and a sheet is given to us to fill out to
inform the evaluator about the challenging students in our classroom and what they may
see. I list everything that these students may do or say; not focused, not on grade level,
even though I knew my administrator already knew, because she knows the students in
her building, but I wanted to place it in writing.
Martha and Sandra, two of the other teachers in the study, confirmed the atmosphere in the
meetings to be open and transparent for those in attendance. Based on this, one can speculate
that the principals followed the CDF in the way that they were trained. Both principals appeared
to have a genuine concern about the teachers, including any worries they had during the
observations. It is apparent that the principals wanted to provide support for the teachers and to
have a clearer understanding of the challenges they were facing. These factors that the teachers
addressed may have aided the principals with their evaluations. Perhaps just being able to
communicate concerns to their principal, and their principal providing suggestions or sincere

50

listening, were all that was required for the teachers to begin to become comfortable with the
new teacher evaluation process.
Post-observation conference. There were not any differences with regard to how the
principals implemented the pre-observations. However, that was not the case with the postobservation process where there were major differences. My data indicated that Todd may have
lost the trust that he had developed with his teachers during these conferences. According to
Martha, these meetings usually took place a few days to a week after the observation. Teachers
were provided a formal assessment in oral and written formats of how the principal measured
their effectiveness as a teacher. Teachers were able to voice their opinion about whether they
agreed or disagreed with the rating they were awarded; that is, a dialogue occurred between both,
so that both parties had a mutual understanding of what took place during the observation.
During these discussions, Todd discussed positive and negative aspects of the lesson and
made suggestions on how the teachers could improve. Todd kept insisting that during the postconference meetings there was dialogue that took place between himself and each teacher. I did
not find any evidence to support his claim. Instead, none of the teachers at Addison indicated
that the discussions were true dialogues. The principal seemed to have the dominant voice in the
discussions and did not display respect; while he listened, nothing the teachers stated was taken
into account to change his evaluations when evidence was brought forth to contradict what Todd
had heard and or saw. When I asked Todd if the evaluation score was changed when the teachers
had submitted evidence to support that their instruction aligned with a domain’s characteristic(s),
he stated,
As an administrator you kind of make that call and then you dialogue about it in the
post-observation we go through the things and make your final note on the final

51

evaluation piece and be objective about it. I have had some conversations with teachers
and I say, I didn’t see that part. And they say we do exit cards at the end of the lesson
and some may miss the exit cards to wrap up the lesson, so I would ask how did you wrap
up the lesson…did the kids really learn what you taught.
I asked him whether he made changes on the evaluation form after having the dialogue with the
teachers. In response, he stated, “Well again, we have a dialogue about it, but it usually doesn’t
change.” All the teachers at his building echoed the same sentiments concerning his lack of
respect and competence for their craft. Pam stated,
I didn’t feel like he was saying anything, for the most part, the first time I was observed,
he missed things, you know the way he handles his observations he stayed in one area
and he missed my differentiated instruction. He was open to the conversation, but he had
already filed out his post-observation form, so it wasn’t like it changed anything that was
there. So that formal observation it was marked that I wasn’t differentiating instruction
when in fact the lesson had three different things that the kids were doing. They were
playing a math multiplication game, at three different levels, so he missed that. He was
opened to it, but…not really.
She mentioned that she asked him to sit in a different area for the second observation, and he
accommodated her request. Fran was more upset concerning her experiences than Pam. Fran
stated;
He listens, but I don’t see him writing anything down nor does that change the score.
Again, some people are so stuck in their ways and have biases that they don’t want to see
what you actually did. These things (evaluations) are subjective.

52

The teachers had the option to check a box on the form that indicated whether they disagreed
with the findings of the evaluation; however, none of them selected that option. Fran went on to
say that she could have filled a grievance about the written evaluation, but that nothing would
happen because of the politics that went on in the central administrative office in the district.
These accusations from these teachers bring up the question, should anyone trust the scores from
the evaluations?
The principals implemented their post-observation conferences in different ways. For
example, Sherry explained how her staff used the post-observation form during the postconference meetings. The form provided teachers a format to reflect on the lesson, how they
themselves would rate their lesson, what last-minute changes they made throughout the lesson,
and how they believed the lesson went. This form may have also been mandatory to complete
and turn in for the teachers at Addison; however, this process was not explicitly communicated
to the interviewer or by any of the teachers.
The teachers at Sherry’s building all raved about her feedback, which they felt was
useful. “When she gives you feedback she will tell you what were the strengths and weaknesses
and provide strategies for you to help with your weaknesses,” stated Leslie, a teacher at
Stuvenberry. Sandra also commented on Sherry’s feedback, stating, “She will also talk about
anything else that she noticed in the classroom—what is good or needs to be improved.”
Unlike the teachers at Stuvenberry, the teachers at Addison were not receptive to Todd’s
suggestions because they did not feel that they were valid or helpful to them. They used terms
such as opinion, negative, and critiques in their descriptions of the post-observation conferences.
These words have negative connotations. Teachers at Stuvenberry selected words such as

53

suggestions, advice, needs to be improved, and weaknesses. These words express genuine
concern and helpfulness as opposed to Todd’s words, which seemed opinionated and unpleasant.
Overall, there were many commonalities in terms of how the principals implemented the
new teacher evaluation. First, they both displayed integrity in how they enacted the new system.
Second, the principals showed personal regard for the teachers as they afforded them the
opportunity to schedule their observation time and/or day, when that was no longer required of
them via the teachers’ union contract. Third, the principals displayed their knowledge of the CDF
materials and their job duties by having routines in place for each entity. Fourth, they listened to
their teachers during pre-conferences where support was provided to the teachers for their
upcoming observations.
While there were commonalities, there were also differences between the principals with
regard to implementation. Todd displayed less integrity because he was not present during the
duration of the observations; therefore, he missed key information needed to accurately complete
the evaluation rubric for the teachers. At the same time, none of the teachers at Stuvenberry had
complaints that Sherry left early or that she neglected to document accurate data on the
evaluation forms during the observations. Todd showed less respect for the teachers’ viewpoint
of what was actually implemented during their observations. He listened; however, he neglected
to mention the new evidence that contradicted his initial evaluation data. He seemed to lack
content and pedagogical knowledge; he did not understand or was not able to identify the key
methods in the teachers’ lessons. All of the teachers at Stuvenberry were receptive to Sherry’s
feedback/suggestions because she had not been out of the classroom for a long period of time
before she became a principal; for that reason, they respected her input on how to make their
lessons more effective. The terminology used during the post-conference meetings by Todd

54

could be considered to have negative connotations, whereas Sherry used words that could be
considered to have positive connotations.
Todd and Sherry both showed personal regard with how they scheduled their teachers’
observations. Both of the principals had enough competence of the CDF materials. Both of the
principals provided all of the required paperwork to help their teachers prepare for the preobservation conferences. However, during the post-observation conferences there was a major
difference between Todd and Sherry. Sherry displayed more respect for her teachers during the
post-observation conferences than Todd displayed towards his teachers. He ignored his teachers’
evidence that refuted his findings, yet Sherry willingly accepted the evidence from her teachers
to determine if a new rating was required.
The above examples illustrate some of the aspects of principal-teacher trust that the
principals fostered as they prepared their staff with information on the new teacher evaluation
instrument, and the methods they used to implement the new teacher evaluation system.
Principal-Teacher Trust
Sincere listening and respect. My data indicate that during the principal-teacher
interactions, there was recognition of the important role each person played, a genuine sense of
listening to what each person had to say, and valuing of each person’s ideas. Also, teachers were
able to voice their concerns and feelings with a sense that the principal would take them into
consideration. However, I was also able to notice clearly distinct differences between the two
principals from my data. The following examples address the respect that both principals
showed towards their teachers. There were also times when Todd did not promote respect
towards his teachers.

55

Sherry’s staff was not only comfortable with her providing feedback and new
information, but they solicited it as well. During the teachers’ common planning time, Sherry
went to each class to see if she could offer her assistance with multiple strategies and classroom
management, and/or to see if any information the teachers had learned about the new evaluation
process needed to be clarified.
As the teachers attended workshops and learned new strategies and other information,
Sherry solicited those teachers to lead workshops within the building for their colleagues. She
was absolutely comfortable with the teachers taking charge of their learning and helping their
peers grow within their craft. She explained,
I think that is (teachers teaching their colleagues) more effective than me being in the
center of the stage. We do that more often than not. Like I will say to them that sounds
awesome, I want you to share that with the staff. So yesterday I told the Literacy Coach
that the Direct Reading Assessment (DRA) was not being conducted in the same way by
everyone, so she is going to do some more training in August and she will train the
staff.
This demonstrated to the teachers that they were valued and capable of providing support and
knowledge to their colleagues. However, there was less evidence of this at Addison than at
Stuvenberry; teachers at Addison were not afforded as many opportunities to learn from their
peers.
Todd and Sherry sincerely listened to their teachers; however, it appeared that Todd did
not fully value or respect his teachers’ input on their lessons. He did not indicate on the written
evaluation the additional evidence that the teachers brought forth to contradict his findings. All
the teachers reported that he would listen attentively in the post-conference meetings regarding

56

the evidence they introduced to prove that a criterion had been addressed in their lesson.
However, he did not add that information to their written evaluation, nor did he change their
score. Here, Todd himself admitted to what the teachers expressed earlier, that they did not
really have a voice in what went into their written evaluations. He explained,
After we have a post-conference, I sit with the teacher and ask them how do you think
the lesson was, is there any way you could have improved on the lesson and we just have
a dialogue about it. But if there was something that I missed and you as a teacher
explained I was doing this with the students and this is what I was doing, we can
dialogue about it and I might miss something and again if I go in for an observation and I
am there from the beginning to end of the lesson, I kind of get the gist of what
transpired in the room. As an administrator you kind of make that call and then you
dialogue about it in the post-observation we go through the things and make your final
note on the final evaluation piece and be objective about it. I have had some
conversations with teachers and I say, I didn’t see that part.
The teachers would introduce evidence in order to address what he stated was not
covered in the lesson. The lesson plan that the teacher submitted in the pre-conference meeting
would be reviewed again to see if that method or those methods were identified as something the
teacher would implement during the lesson. When I asked Todd again if the notes on the written
evaluation reflected the evidence that the teacher produced, he stated, “Well again, we have a
dialogue about it, but it usually doesn’t change.” From my data, one could conclude that Todd
showed that he sincerely listened to the input from his teachers, but clearly there was a lack of
respect in that he did not take into account the evidence from the teachers.

57

When there is genuine respect for one another, often times this is shown by recognizing
that everyone has an important role to play within the community of learners. Genuine respect
does not seem to be a characteristic that Todd displayed. His failure to be respectful towards the
teachers may have been due to his trying to learn all of the components of the new teacher
evaluation system, and that may have been his one and only focus. As for the teacher-led
workshops, perhaps none of the teachers at Addison raised the issue of needing or wanting such
workshops, or perhaps no one had shown themselves to be a true teacher-leader. Nevertheless,
one of the characteristics of a true leader is being able to recognize the strengths of the members
they lead and knowing when to volunteer someone who has the knowledge and leadership skills
to perform the task.
Personal regard for others. My data indicated that during the principal-teacher
interactions, there were times when the principals demonstrated how much they cared about their
teachers’ careers, and so they willingly extended themselves beyond their job requirements.
Next, I describe instances when the principals demonstrated personal regard or lack of personal
regard for their teachers.
Todd and Sherry both showed personal regard for their staff, Sherry at times more than
Todd. Principals were no longer required by the teachers’ union contract to inform teachers of
their observation dates; nonetheless, Todd and Sherry still did this. At times, some teachers at
Addison were unsure if Todd had personal regard for them. Fran explained how some teachers
removed students from their classroom during their observation. I asked her if Todd had a roster
of how many students were in the classroom, and did the teacher have to provide an explanation
as to why those students were not in attendance. Her response was, “Yes, he has a roster for

58

each class. Well, if he, how shall I say it, if you are in his good graces that day then no.” Fran’s
comment indicates that Todd may have been biased towards some of the teachers.
Personal regard for the teachers was more visible at Stuvenberry than Addison. Sherry
extended herself as she shared with her staff the knowledge she obtained in order to learn about
the new teacher evaluation system. She went over the materials and the rankings and had her
staff look at sections of the document that affected not only the grade they were teaching, but
other subject matters as well. For Todd’s part, he reviewed the materials with his staff.
However, no one was able to produce substantial evidence that it was more than just that, a
review.
There are many stakeholders in education who believe that if educators are linked
emotionally and/or physically to the school community where they teach, the effort they exert in
educating the students may increase. Sherry had lived in the school’s local community for
numerous years before she married and moved away. She had worked within the district for 18
years compared to Todd’s two years. This may explain why Sherry, compared to Todd,
appeared to have a stronger personal regard for her teachers.
Competence. My data indicated that the principals had a solid understanding of their job
duties, that they interacted with their staff members in respectful ways, and that routines were
implemented for the new evaluation system that allowed everyone to learn about the new
process. The principals displayed similarities and differences with regard to their competence in
the area of teacher evaluation.
One similarity was their knowledge of the content within the CDF. They attended the
same district workshops where they learned about the teacher evaluation instrument. Both had
experience as classroom teachers and thus were knowledgeable about instruction and teachers’

59

daily duties. Todd had been a principal longer than Sherry; however, Sherry had served as an
English Second Language Director and a Special Education Supervisor for the district.
Therefore, she was more familiar with the district’s rules and procedures than Todd. Todd had
not been in the classroom for the past 10 years; he had been an administrator during that time.
Sherry had not been in the classroom for the past two years, but she continued to work closely
with teachers and students in her previous roles.
They both conducted the walk-throughs consistently, and they completed observations
twice for each teacher as well as pre- and post-conferences. There were also routines for
organizing and implementing the observations. The principals placed in the office sign-up sheets
for each round of observations, and they contacted the teachers soon after the observations were
completed to schedule post-observation conferences. One could conclude that the principals
were competent with regard to understanding their job duties and ensuring routines were in place
to support the new teacher evaluation system.
My data indicated that Sherry displayed more knowledge of the walk-through process
than Todd. She was able to provide the name of the software that the district used for the walkthroughs, and to explain how it worked. She provided more information concerning what the
principals were expected to do with the walk-through data. She articulated the teacher
evaluation rankings and how data from the evaluations was used by the district. When it came to
providing feedback to her staff, they considered her suggestions to be helpful. The teachers in
Todd’s building did not find his feedback to be as meaningful or useful. However, Pam did
acknowledge that he made some valid points during one of her post-observation conferences.

60

Integrity. For true leaders to lead anyone, they must exhibit integrity through their words
and actions. My data indicated that during the principal-teacher interactions, the principals
displayed more differences than similarities.
The integrity Sherry displayed towards her staff was commendable. However, Todd’s
ratings from his teachers were much less favorable. Sherry displayed consistency between what
she said and what she did; causing her teachers to believe that she was very trustworthy. This
was not the case with Todd; teachers at Addison did not believe that Todd displayed integrity.
There was evidence of a lack of integrity on his part that was indicated by the teachers’
testimonies. They were not pleased that Todd left their observations early and did not write up
the evaluations in a way that indicated when he departed. Also, according to Fran, he allowed
some teachers to send students outside of the classroom during formal observations. Sherry was
consistent with regard to how she treated all of the teachers during the observations. Leslie
stated, “She does everything by the book. She doesn’t bend the rules, but she works with you to
help you learn.” All of the teachers at Stuvenberry absolutely believed that Sherry was
trustworthy and that she respected them, and they respected her completely.
The teachers at Stuvenberry trusted Sherry’s leadership skills through the entire teacher
evaluation process. These skills included understanding the new teacher evaluation document,
respecting and valuing the various tasks that the teachers had to perform, demonstrating a
willingness to extend themselves to their teachers, and being trustworthy. In comparison to their
counterparts at Stuvenberry, the teachers at Addison seemed to exhibit less trust in Todd’s
leadership skills.
Sincere listening and respect was demonstrated by Sherry as she valued her teachers’
knowledge, opinions, and craft. She allowed her teachers to facilitate professional development

61

sessions, and allowed them to produce evidence in response to her ratings off their teaching
practice. Todd demonstrated listening, but it was not sincere listening, and he also demonstrated
a lack of respect towards his teachers. He listened to the teachers’ evidence to support their
teaching practice; however, he did not use the presented evidence to change any of their ratings.
He also did not offer any opportunities to the teachers to facilitate professional development.
Personal regard was extended towards the teachers by Todd and Sherry as they continued to
allow them to schedule their observations. However, Sherry displayed greater personal regard as
she continued to find ways to bring information to the teachers about the new TE. As Todd
interacted with his teachers, he exhibited a lack of personal regard toward certain teachers by
providing them leeway to allow specific students to exit the classroom before their observation.
Competence concerning the new TE was demonstrated by Todd and Sherry as they introduced
the new document and they also had a solid command over their job duties. Sherry displayed
more competence when it came to the walk-throughs; she explained the procedure in greater
detail. The integrity that Sherry exhibited towards the teachers was consistent and unbiased.
Todd, however, lacked integrity as he was not consistent with regard to arriving for and leaving
the teachers’ observations and his written evaluations reflected these inconsistencies.
Pre-and Post-Conference Oral and Written Feedback
This section focuses on the pre-and post-conference meetings that were connected to the
principals’ implementation of the CDF. When the district decided to adopt the CDF in 2010-11,
they implemented all four domains of this framework and added assessment as their fifth
domain. This domain is an extension of Domain 3, Section 3D, Using Assessment in Instruction.
The pre-conference meetings were crucial to some teachers, especially if they were a novice
teacher or if their teaching practices had previously been rated ineffective. At these meetings, the

62

principal’s responsibility was to offer suggestions to assist the teacher in examining his or her
methods of instruction and assessment. The post-conference meeting was also critical because
the principal provided scores that determined the teacher’s effectiveness as an instructional
leader. The principals needed strong knowledge of content and pedagogy at each grade level to
offer authentic suggestions regarding the strengths and weaknesses they observed during their
observations, as well as suggestions to improve the teachers’ teaching practice. Also, this
conference offered teachers a platform for discussing their teaching practices and their concerns
about the curriculum and/or their students. The following two sections help address Research
Question #2, “What role does principal leadership play in teachers’ responses to new approaches
to teacher evaluation?”
Pre-conference oral and written feedback. The principal’s role during this part of the
CDF can be very vital in how a teacher envisions him/herself as an instructional leader. This is
when the principal provides oral and written feedback on the teacher’s lesson and the methods
and the assessment(s) the teachers selected to meet the objective(s) of the lesson; mostly oral
feedback is provided to the teacher in this meeting. The principal’s suggestions and questions
should help the teacher analyze each section of the lesson as well as the possible results. Sherry
and Todd conducted the pre-conference meetings in similar ways.
Prior to the pre-conference observation meetings, the teachers had to complete a lesson
plan template that the district implemented: Knowledge Understanding Do (KUD). The template
had sections for the lesson’s objective, the material the teacher would use, the content, and the
assessment that would be given to the students.
During the pre-conference, teachers could raise concerns about the curriculum, students,
parents, or other issues. For example, Leslie spoke about how her principal knew the challenges

63

she had with her students because she knew the students and that her class was selected for her
by the principal. Thus, in the meetings the principal would ask specific questions about specific
students.
Todd confirmed that he conducted these pre-conference meetings according to district
policy; he did not indicate the length of the pre-conference meetings. Sherry stated that for her,
the conferences usually lasted five minutes; she looked over the lesson plans briefly because her
staff had to turn in weekly lesson plans, and she required the plans to be resubmitted if the
teacher made changes to them. Some may feel that five minutes is not enough time for the
teachers to adequately share their thoughts on their lesson or for the principal to advise them. But
Leslie was adamant that Sherry knew her staff and that she was constantly visible in the
classrooms. Also, the teachers in her school attested that she treated everyone fairly. So, one
could conclude that if the staff or the principal had any major challenges, needs, or concerns,
they would have reached out to her before the pre-conference meetings. My data indicated that
Todd and Sherry implemented the pre-conferences in similar ways and provided their teachers
with oral and written feedback. However, that was not the case with the post-conference oral
and written feedback.
Post-conference oral and written feedback. The post-conference was the second
mandatory meeting that was part of the CDF. This meeting was scheduled to take place after the
evaluator had observed the teacher’s lesson; it usually took place within a week of the
observation. During this meeting, the principal informed the teacher of their ratings for the five
domains, and the teachers were able to voice any concerns about the scores that were given. At
this meeting, the principal was expected have an open and honest dialogue about the teacher’s
instructional practice and whether there was any need for improvement. During these meetings,

64

the teachers could voice their concern if they believed any errors were made with their scores;
they were expected to provide evidence if they felt a rating should be changed. My data indicated
that the principals handled the post-conferences in very different ways.
Both principals conducted two mandatory post-conference meetings with each teacher.
Before this meeting, the teachers were asked to fill out a post-observation reflection form. Leslie
explained the content of the form:
You type that up (the post-form) and submit that post-conference reflection form along
with any work that they (the students) have finished from the activity that she saw, she
wants samples of that. You reflect on how you think the lesson went. The questions that
are asked are, If you had the opportunity to change something what would it be and why?
What are your strengths and weaknesses? How do your rate yourself? Do you feel that
you are highly effective, or not, and why?
Several teachers in the study repeated similar questions when asked about the content of the
form. One may conclude that these may be standard questions that are scripted for the principals
to ask the teachers to begin the dialogue process.
As the meeting progressed, oral feedback was provided to the teachers regarding the five
domains that were observed. As the principal provided oral feedback for each domain, the
teachers were supplied with evidence of how those scores were calculated. There was more oral
feedback than written feedback due to the amount of space the district provided on the forms.
This could potentially become a problem; neither the teachers nor the principals had proof of
what was communicated beyond the written statements.
Todd and Sherry did not differ in how they managed their time to meet with the teachers
for the conferences, but Todd demonstrated less integrity as he evaluated the teachers. In

65

particular, his written feedback was questioned by all three teachers in the study. Pam
mentioned that he gave her low ratings on certain domains because his knowledge of the
subject/skill may not have allowed him to understand what was transpiring in the lesson. “I am
not clear what his teaching pedagogy or understanding is, to be totally honest. I am just unclear.
So whether he knows that or not, I could not tell you.” When evidence was provided that
contradicted his rating, Todd continued to listen; however, neither the score nor the written
portion of the evaluation changed. There is a section on the form that the teachers can check if
they disagree with the score and feedback; however, none of the teachers mentioned they did
this. The other two teachers at Addison had similar experiences with the written feedback they
were provided.
Sherry went over the teachers’ goals that they created at the beginning of the year. If she
was not able to stay to see the conclusion of the lesson, she asked the teachers to bring in
samples of students’ work during the post-conference meeting. Teachers at Stuvenberry stated
that her oral feedback was useful because she did have the pedagogical knowledge required to
implement procedures and provide suggestions to her staff. In contrast to Sherry’s efforts to
review her teachers’ goals as part of evaluating them, Todd did not mention speaking to his
teachers during the conferences about their goals.
In sum, the principals conducted the post-conference meetings in different ways. The first
difference was that Todd did not sincerely listen or demonstrate respect during the time the
teachers communicated their evidence to contradict their evaluation ratings, while Sherry
listened and showed respect as she communicated the data that she compiled regarding the
teachers’ instructional practices. The second difference was that Todd demonstrated a lack of
integrity during the oral and written feedback while Sherry demonstrated integrity while offering

66

her teachers feedback. Lastly, Sherry displayed a higher competence level with regard to the
new teacher evaluation instruments as opposed to Todd. She reviewed the post-conference form
and the smart goals during these conferences, but Todd did not mention these forms.
Walk-throughs
Walk-throughs were another part of the new teacher evaluation system based on the CDF.
There were some similarities and differences in how the principals carried out this task as well as
how they explained the purpose of the walk-throughs.
The walk-throughs were informal observations that the principals conducted
bi-weekly. Both principals reported that they spent no more than 10 minutes per walk-through.
Todd stated that he focused on how the students responded to the teachers’ instructional practices
and classroom management strategies. He did not offer any information as to what he did with
the data he collected during these walk-throughs.
Sherry did not offer any specific details as to what she looked for during the walkthroughs she performed. She did explain that the walk-through data was supposed to be included
in the teachers’ final evaluation score. The teachers at both schools felt that feedback was not
provided to them from the walk-throughs unless the principal had some concerns.
While Todd seemed unclear about the purpose of the walk-throughs, Sherry seemed to
have a better understanding of how the data was used. Teachers at both schools, though, did not
seem aware that the walk-through data was used to help determine their overall evaluation score.
If the district was using the data to determine a percentage of the teachers’ overall evaluation
score, district officials should have made this clear to the teachers. In addition, the principals are
held responsible for providing a rating of the effectiveness of teachers. In order to do this fairly,
the evidence must be thorough. Principals must have a substantial amount of evidence from

67

formal and informal observations that is high quality. Therefore, the district may want to rethink
the amount of time the principal needs to spend in the classroom, as well as the number of walkthroughs that they must complete. Lastly, the district could communicate specific reasons for
these walk-throughs so that teachers understood their practice. These walk-throughs could help
some teachers improve their instructional and classroom management skills.
In sum, if the teachers believed that a part of the new teacher evaluation system, such as
the walk-throughs, was not useful, they may have developed some distrust of their principals
and/or central district administrators.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter is to address the second research question: “What role does
principal leadership play in teachers’ responses to new approaches to teacher evaluation?” I
examined three aspects of principal leadership: (1) how principals prepared their staff with
information on the new teacher evaluation; (2) how principals implemented the new teacher
evaluation; and (3) principal-teacher trust relations associated with the implementation of the
new teacher evaluation.
As the principals provided the teachers information concerning the new system, it was
apparent that principal-teacher trust was a primary indicator that affected whether the process
was successful. It also became clear that teacher trust with regard to their principal’s leadership
skills needed to be established before the process started. As the principals carried out the new
teacher evaluation system, they began to display characteristics that indicated their level of
leadership. Table 2A outlines the main findings from my study.

68

Table 1A. Main findings
Main Findings

Sherry

Todd

1) Principals prepared their
staff with information on the
new teacher system evaluation

a)Discussed the TE document,
provided examples of the
elements in domains, guided
the teachers through the walkthrough process, teachers met
in grade level meetings to
discuss the TE document
b)Allowed the teachers to
schedule their observations

a)Reviewed the TE document

2)Principals implemented the
new TE

a)Provided opportunities to
the teachers to continue to
schedule their observations
b)All CDF materials and
paperwork required was
reviewed
c)Post-conferences: When
ratings were provided and
teachers had evidence to refute
the rating, principal took that
information into consideration

a)Provided opportunities to
the teachers to continue to
schedule their observations
b) All CDF materials and
paperwork required was
reviewed
c) Post-conferences: When
ratings were provided and
teachers had evidence to refute
the rating, the principal did not
take that information into
consideration

3) Principal-teacher trust

a) Integrity was displayed with
her staff through her
consistent actions—followed
the rules and did not display
bias; teachers believed her to
be trustworthy—she extended
herself to make sure that the
teachers understood the new
system process

a) Integrity was not displayed
due to principal
leaving/arriving to observation
late and the written evaluation
did not reflect what he
actually observed; some
teachers were allowed to
dismiss certain students during
their observation

b)Allowed the teachers to
schedule their observations

In terms of similarities, both Todd and Sherry were competent evaluators. Second, they
both exhibited personal regard for the teachers; they continued to allow the teachers to schedule
the time and day of their observations.

69

At the same time, there were numerous differences between the two principals. First,
Sherry provided her teachers with more in-depth information regarding the new system than
Todd did. Second, there was a lack of sincere listening and respect exhibited by Todd as he
conducted his post-conference meetings. He did not consider the evidence that was brought
forth by the teachers who challenged their evaluation rating. Third, my data indicated that
Sherry displayed a higher degree of integrity (i.e., consistency) than Todd, which allowed her
staff members to trust her leadership abilities.
The teachers at Stuvenberry commended Sherry’s leadership abilities; she allowed
teachers to become facilitators of workshops; she provided them with advice; she listened to their
concerns and challenges as educators; and she possessed the pedagogy to offer methods that
would assist with educating multiple learners. On the other hand, Todd did not receive the same
reaction from the teachers in his building. They seemed dissatisfied with his leadership skills; he
lacked the necessary pedagogy to assist with their teaching practices; he did not offer accurate
ratings for their observations; and they believed their rating was lowered because of his early
arrival or departure from their observations.
The principals were still learning how to conduct the evaluations without biases in order
to provide teachers with fair and accurate ratings, and if this could be accomplished, teachers
would have a better outlook on the new teacher evaluation system. In chapter four I will address
how teachers learned about the CDF; teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ levels of
communication about and support for the new system; how the new observation instrument
supported the teachers’ instruction; and the teachers’ concerns about the new teacher evaluation
process.

70

Chapter 4
Elementary Teachers Interpret and Respond to the New TE
In this chapter, I address the second research question, “How do elementary teachers
interpret and respond to new approaches to teacher evaluation?” In particular, I examine what
teachers learned about the Charlotte Danielson Framework (CDF). I also describe the teachers’
perceptions of their principals’ levels of communication about and support for the new system.
In addition, I examine how the new observation instrument supported teachers’ instruction, and I
describe the teachers’ concerns about the new teacher evaluation system.
Teachers’ Experiences with the New Teacher Evaluation System
Novice and veteran teachers have always been held accountable for the quality of their
instruction. A key part of this has been classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations.
School districts have been required to provide non-tenured teachers with an individualized
development plan and evaluations at least yearly, based on a minimum of two classroom
observations (Michigan AFT, 2013). In contrast, traditionally in Michigan after teachers obtained
tenure, they were not evaluated very often; in most districts, tenured teachers have traditionally
been evaluated once every three to five years.
Under the new Michigan law, all school districts are required to submit, for approval by
the state, a new teacher evaluation instrument that their district would utilize. The document that
received approval had to be implemented in the manner which the district described in their
initial proposal. The change to the new law is mainly for tenured teachers; now they must be
evaluated yearly, the same as novice teachers.
The new teacher evaluation system may be viewed by some teachers as a chance to prove
their teaching abilities, while others may view it as just another opportunity for the teaching

71

profession to be demoralized. Whichever view teachers take, there is no argument that the new
teacher evaluation system is not just another educational intervention that will come and leave
quickly. Nonetheless, teachers need to be aware of the requirements if they are going to obtain
and maintain high ratings that demonstrate their effectiveness in the classroom.
Many veteran teachers had not been formally evaluated for at least five years before the
2011-2012 school year. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, the district began
implementing the state-mandated new teacher evaluation system. As the new system was
implemented, teachers developed perspectives on whether their principal implemented the new
system correctly, their principal’s levels of communication about and support for the new
system, the utility of the rating system, and possible problems with the new system. In the next
section, I describe how the teachers learned about the CDF.
How Teachers Learned about the CDF
Each principal in the district was responsible for reviewing all of the new teacher
evaluation materials with teachers and for answering their questions and concerns. No one could
deny the tremendous responsibility that was placed on the principals: to understand the new
teacher evaluation system, to help teachers understand it, to implement it, and constantly to make
sure that teachers were updated on changes to the system.
As I examined my data, there were noticeable similarities and differences between the
two groups of teachers in how they learned about the new system. In both schools, the teachers
attended an initial staff meeting held by their principal. In this meeting, he/she introduced all of
the documents that the district had provided. The principal reviewed the new system document
and gave teachers the opportunity to ask questions, and they attempted to address them, as well
as their concerns.

72

Even though the teachers at both schools received the information in a similar manner,
Stuvenberry’s teachers were provided more in-depth learning from their principal than Addison’s
teachers. Sherry dissected each part of the document with the teachers, not only reviewing what
the document stated, but making sure that it was comprehensible. She provided visuals of what
some of the domain elements would look like. The wording in the document could be
ambiguous, and she wanted to make sure that the teachers knew exactly what she would be
looking for when she evaluated their lessons. The teachers at Addison, however, did not receive
this comprehensive explanation.
The teachers at Stuvenberry also spoke highly of their principal’s enthusiasm as she
passed on information that they needed to know about the new teacher evaluation process.
Sherry made information available not only at the beginning of the school year; she also
provided information at the staff meetings that were held throughout the school year and during
grade level meetings. Todd only provided information to his staff at the beginning of the school
year. If other information was given to him by the district, he made certain that he passed it on
to the teachers. However, he did not provide any additional meetings that were set aside
specifically to discuss the new system. This was in direct contrast with how Sherry kept her
teachers informed.
The teachers at Addison reported other ways in which they learned about the CDF. One
of the teachers recalled reading all of the materials on her own after the initial meeting, as well as
locating information on the district’s website and the Michigan Department of Education
website. Another teacher admitted that she learned about the evaluation through a course she
took. She acknowledged that had she not taken the course, she would not have been as
knowledgeable about the CDF, the domains, the ratings, the evaluator’s role in the process, or

73

how the evaluation system aids the teachers in assessing their strengths and weaknesses. Given
the different ways that the teachers acquired information regarding the new system, one could
conclude that the teachers may have had different levels of knowledge about the new system.
In the sections that follow, I discuss ways in which the teachers at Stuvenberry
demonstrated more knowledge than the teachers at Addison the about pre- and post-conferences,
the domains, and the ratings.
Pre- and post-conferences. The conferences are mandatory for both the principal and
the teacher. The meetings act as a buffer between the principal and teacher so that both can
speak freely about what had transpired during and after the observed lesson.
The teachers at Addison explained that a lesson plan for their evaluated lesson had to be
submitted before the observations. Two teachers briefly mentioned the pre-conference form that
they had to fill out prior to the meeting. Another teacher explained how the pre-conference form
asked teachers to provide specific details about the students in their classroom and what they
would teach and why, and if they had any circumstances that would prevent them from achieving
the goals in their lesson. This was all of the information that the Addison teachers provided about
the pre-conferences.
The teachers at Stuvenberry also mentioned having to fill out a pre-conference form
along with completing a lesson plan before they would be observed. However, these teachers
went into greater detail concerning the questions that were on the pre-conference form.
Questions were on the form that helped them to think critically about the lesson, the resources,
and the methods they would use, as well as the possible outcome(s). The district wanted the
teachers to not only think of these questions when they were developing their evaluated lesson,
but in relation to all of their lessons. The principal also asked for an overview of the students in

74

the classroom who had challenges; e.g., those who were not able to focus and those who were
not working at grade level. The principal requested specifications of the lesson; i.e., if they
anticipated any challenges during the implementation of the lesson, and everything that she
might see during the observation. The teachers’ smart goals, which were five goals that they
wanted to accomplish before the end of the school year, were also reviewed to determine what
evidence would indicate whether the goals had been met.
The teachers at Addison offered a few details about what transpired during the postconferences. There were forms that they were required to complete before the conference.
During the conference, the principal critiqued and presented his findings of the observed lesson.
He also asked the teachers to reflect on their lesson; did they accomplish the goals of the lesson?
And what were their next steps? There was not a lot of data provided to me by the teachers at
Addison on this topic.
With the post-conference meetings, the teachers at Stuvenberry declared that they had
also to submit a post-observation form. The form asked that they reflect on their observed lesson
so that they may possibly critique themselves, just as the evaluator had done. The district hoped
that the teachers would begin to critique their lessons to identify their strengths and weaknesses
and to begin to improve their teaching practices. The teachers made it very clear that this form
went into more detail than the pre-conference form. They also stated that this meeting was
where the principal provided feedback from the lesson and offered advice to help improve their
teaching practices. The principal asked the teachers to bring in students’ work samples from the
lesson that was evaluated in order to determine if the final product corresponded with the
assessment of the lesson. Two teachers were able to discuss how the principal derived a rating
for their lesson. They discussed how the principal used a checklist in which each domain was

75

rated and then all the ratings were calculated to determine a final rating. Again, the teachers at
Stuvenberry were able to present significantly more information about post-conferences than the
teachers at Addison.
Domains and ratings. The CDF has four domains. These domains are used in the
formal and informal observations to evaluate the effectiveness of the teachers’ teaching
practices. The domains are: (1) planning and preparation; (2) the classroom environment; (3)
instruction; and (4) professional responsibilities. However, the district added assessment as their
fifth domain. There were four ratings that a teacher could receive; (1) highly effective, (2)
effective, (3) minimally effective, and (4) ineffective.
The teachers at Addison had less knowledge on the subject of the domains and the ratings
than the teachers at Stuvenberry. Stuvenberry teachers were able to provide substantial
information regarding several of the domains. They knew the names of four of the domains, and
one teacher informed me that the district added a fifth domain, but she was unable to provide the
domain’s name. Some details were provided concerning the elements in the domains. The
teachers explained how the principal arrived at the teacher’s final rating; each domain received a
rating, and all of the ratings were then combined to determine their final observation rating. The
domains were very important for a teacher to be able to understand and implement, seeing as
their evaluation rating was based on how effectively they were able to address the domains in
their evaluated lesson.
One teacher at Addison mentioned the ratings as she discussed the post-conferences. The
principal gave them a form that had the criteria for each domain, and according to the criteria, he
indicated next to each one if the teacher was highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or

76

ineffective; this was how the teachers’ ratings were determined. The other two teachers did not
offer any information about the rating factors.
The teachers at Stuvenberry were able to discuss the ratings and explain how they were
connected to the domains, which was in contrast to the teachers at Addison. One of the teachers
stated that each domain had several elements, and when the principal came in to evaluate, she
placed a checkmark next to it and then she calculated the score. Then all of the domain ratings
were combined to determine the teacher’s final score. She went on to state that she had the
calculation written down because the principal went through it with the staff, but she did not
know it verbatim. As the principals implemented the new system, teachers were able to acquire
feedback regarding their effectiveness.
Plan of Action for Unsatisfactory Ratings
Knowing the consequences of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating can assist teachers in
their quest to maintain their employment. Teachers from both schools were aware of the
consequences that were associated with all ratings, yet some teachers had a higher level of
knowledge regarding these consequences than others. There were a lot of questions that the
teachers at Addison had regarding the consequences that were associated with unsatisfactory
ratings.
Stuvenberry’s teachers were quite familiar with the district’s plan to support teachers who
received unsatisfactory ratings. As the teachers discussed their knowledge of the plan, it was
apparent that their knowledge again was greater than that of the teachers at Addison. One
teacher offered the following information:
There is a plan put in place after a teacher gets two or more minimally effective or
ineffective ratings. The teacher is placed on probation and they must agree with the

77

principal to a plan; the teacher may have to go to professional development, meet with a
designated coach in the district, or just work with the principal. If the teacher receives
another minimally effective or ineffective rating while the teacher is on probation, my
understanding is that the teacher is terminated.
It was also mentioned that the teacher had to have a meeting with the principal. This is when the
principal offers recommendations for the types of professional development that the teacher must
attend. Then the principal would have to conduct additional walk-throughs for that teacher to
ensure that he/she was improving. After the teacher attended a certain number of professional
development activities, he/she was reevaluated. After the plan had been executed, if the teacher
had not made any improvements, the principal had the right to ask that the teacher be terminated.
However, the school board and the district’s human resource director were the ones with the
authority to make a final decision regarding termination.
The teachers at Addison all had some knowledge of the district’s plan of action for
teachers who received unsatisfactory ratings. One teacher confided in me that there was a plan,
but she was not completely clear on the details. Another teacher believed that there was some
type of “corrective feedback” that was provided to the teacher to help him or her begin to make
self-improvements. Other than the feedback, she was not clear about the plan. The last teacher
indicated that her understanding of the district’s plan for teachers who received unsatisfactory
ratings was that a conference was held with them to put an intervention plan in place. The
intervention was to help them improve their teaching practices. Also, they were given a time
frame as to when they would be reevaluated; however, the teachers were unaware of the amount
of time that was allotted to the teacher to improve their practice.

78

In sum, the teachers at Stuvenberry had greater knowledge of the new teacher evaluation
system than the teachers at Addison.
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across the Two
Schools?
Sherry provided teachers with a considerable amount of additional knowledge of pre-and
post-conferences, domains, and ratings; as a result, the Stuvenberry teachers had more
knowledge of the new teacher evaluation system than the Addison teachers. The teachers at
Stuvenberry were more knowledgeable about the conferences, what forms and paperwork needed
to be submitted before and during the meetings, as well as the discussions that took place during
those meetings, the elements of the domains, and how the ratings were calculated. The ways in
which the teachers learned about the CDF was related to differences in principal-teacher trust
across the two schools. Personal regard, one of the criteria for principal-teacher trust, played a
significant role in these differences.
Todd showed some personal regard for the teachers in his care when he gave them an
opportunity to schedule their own observations. But my data clearly indicates that Sherry
displayed characteristics of compassion and willingness, which may have led her to provide the
teachers with knowledge of the new system, which extended beyond her role.
Sherry held additional meetings throughout the school year to ensure teachers had more
in-depth knowledge of the new system. Teachers were provided examples of the elements to
clarify all of the misunderstandings that they believed to be in the domains. Also, all
components in the new system document were thoroughly reviewed by Sherry with her teachers.
She believed that her teachers needed to know and have a full understanding of the content in the

79

document. This may have been one of the main reasons why the teachers acquired more
knowledge than the teachers at Addison.
Teachers' Perceptions of Their Principals' Levels of Communication about and Support
for the New System
Principals had the difficult task of implementing the new system with the teachers, and of
course no two people can execute such a task in the same way. For that reason, the teachers’
perceptions of their principals’ levels of communication about and support for the new system
differed at both schools.
The teachers at Stuvenberry all spoke highly of Sherry’s enthusiasm that she displayed as
she began to prepare them for the new system. Sherry made information available not only at the
beginning of the school year, but also at the staff meetings that were held throughout the school
year, when she thoroughly reviewed each component of the new teacher evaluation system. She
also visited the teachers’ grade-level meetings throughout the school year to ask the teachers if
they needed any clarification on the new system and to offer any new information that she had
learned or to provide them with paperwork she received that would keep them abreast of any
changes.
Sherry was aware that the language in the new system could be ambiguous and
subjective; therefore, she provided concrete examples of certain domain elements that the
teachers were unclear about in order for them to understand what that particular teaching practice
would look like. The teachers were very grateful to Sherry for listening to their concerns and
helping them understand what the district expected from them during their evaluations. In
addition, Sherry informed her staff that she was unclear about some areas of the new system.
However, she was still in the process of learning because she needed to have a definite

80

understanding of the new system and her role. The teachers appreciated how she was honest with
them from the beginning concerning her lack of knowledge of the new system. She made sure
that she continued to learn and correct any misinformation that she had provided them. Due to
her forthcoming nature, the teachers did not harbor any hostility towards her; instead, the trust in
her grew stronger.
During the pre- and post-conferences, the teachers indicated that the level of
communication and feedback that Sherry provided was useful and helpful. She gave them
authentic suggestions to help them improve their teaching practice. If they wanted to implement
any of the ideas she had offered, she came into their classroom during the lesson to offer
additional feedback. As she communicated with her staff regarding the new system, she listened
to their concerns and offered suggestions to help them improve and deal with those concerns in a
positive manner. She did not want any of her teachers to feel overwhelmed by the new system.
She feared that it could potentially cause them to lose focus on their teaching, so she continued to
acknowledge their accomplishments. The teachers believed that Sherry ensured seamless and
positive experiences for everyone. She did not want them just to go through the process because
it was mandatory; instead, she wanted and encouraged them to learn about their teaching
practice, so that they could continue to grow in their craft. Also, she communicated that as their
principal, she was there to support them in any way that she could.
Walk-throughs were another component which the principals had to introduce to the
teachers. When Todd presented the new system document to his teachers, he explained that he
would be making informal observations, which were called walk-throughs; they would last
approximately 2-10 minutes each; and that they would occur once a week or bi-weekly,

81

depending on his schedule. He also notified them that he would use a pre-set checklist during
the informal observations.
Sherry described the process in more detail than Todd. She not only described the
checklist which included a condensed version of the five domains that the principals used during
the teachers’ formal observations, but she also spoke about the frequency of the observations: at
least once a week for a minimum of 5 minutes. In addition, she explained that the walk-through
instrument she would use was derived from the CDF. After describing the documents for this
component, she then demonstrated the walk-throughs by using her iPad and the Teach Scape
software the district used for the informal observations. This software stored the data and
generated the teachers’ reports and scores, which could be sent to the teachers electronically.
As the new system began, the teachers at Addison quickly realized that Todd’s
communication about and support for the new system was minimal, even though they felt he
implemented the new system correctly, in terms of formally observing each teacher twice,
implementing the walk-throughs, and conducting the pre-and-post conferences. They concluded
that Todd had briefly described the new system as he provided information to them; many found
that they had to go to the district’s website and the Michigan Department of Education website to
read additional information to acquire a better understanding. Furthermore, he was rarely
available to assist the teachers if they had any concerns or questions. There were not any
professional development meetings in the building to assist the teachers to obtain comprehensive
understanding. Also, the teachers had to depend on one another to learn about the various
components of the new system, and they became aware that a principal mentor worked with
Todd because he was a novice to the district. She would accompany him during the evaluations
and provide feedback to the teachers as well when she was in the building. This was not

82

communicated to all of the teachers, thus providing additional anxiety to the teachers regarding
the new system.
Feedback was another area where the teachers believed that Todd provided limited
support for the new system. The teachers perceived their principal’s communication and support
to be limited or non-existent during the post-conferences. They felt that Todd was inclined to
sincerely listen to their objections regarding the ratings. Yet, the teachers suggested that Todd
did not support them professionally because he did not consider the evidence that was brought
forth that could have led him to reconsider his findings.
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across the Two
Schools?
My data indicated that sincere listening and respect were the basis of the differences in
principal-teacher trust across the two schools. It was obvious that Todd tried at certain points in
the implementation process genuinely to listen to what each of the teachers had to say as he
allowed them to voice their concerns regarding their rating. Still, he showed little to no respect
for the teachers’ craft nor for the evidence they submitted to refute his findings. He dismissed
the evidence and caused the teachers to develop limited to no trust in his leadership abilities.
Sherry displayed excellent leadership skills as she carefully and respectfully listened to
the teachers’ concerns. She acknowledged that they were a part of the process, and she ensured
them that they would not be treated as bystanders to the new system. Thus, she took their
concerns and tried her best to provide solutions to assist the teachers to be as successful as
possible, as they moved through the new system. From Sherry extending her role as an
administrator, to her respecting the teachers’ instructional practices, her teachers believed her to

83

be a very trustworthy person who showed a deep concern for them through her sincere listening
and respect.
Ways in Which the New Teacher Evaluation System Supported Teachers' Instruction
As with any new intervention, some teachers may have found that it supported their
instruction and some the opposite. In this case, teachers indicated that the new system supported
their instruction. There were numerous themes that were evident at both schools: guidelines,
accountability, planning time, evidence of teacher’s instructional skills, professional
development, smart goals, pre- and post-conferences, and walk-throughs. All of the teachers at
Stuvenberry believed that the new system offered support to keep them aligned with the district’s
teaching guidelines. They used the guidelines, which were the domains, to remain focused on
the content they needed to teach; i.e., the district’s benchmarks. This was very helpful to
teachers who had a level change or who were teaching a new grade for the first time.
Planning time was another feature of the new system. As the teachers were observed once
in the beginning of the school year, and again in the middle of the school year, the principals
were obligated to ensure that they were keeping pace with the curriculum. The teachers were
expected to focus on certain reading, social studies and science themes and to be in a certain
chapter in math during certain times in the school year. Teachers used this system to pace their
lessons in order to ensure they were meeting the district’s guidelines.
Another way that the new system supported teachers’ instruction was through the
evaluator. All the teachers looked at the evaluator as the person who had the ability to provide
evidence of their teaching abilities. This evidence, if teachers were willing to learn from the
feedback, could help the teachers improve their teaching practices. Previously the evaluation
system was much more subjective because the evaluator had to use his/her prior classroom

84

knowledge to determine if the teacher met the requirements. The new system provided the
evaluator a rubric with specific key points to look for during the observation, which would help
to eliminate some subjectivity. Also, it provided teachers accurate information in the five
domains that could potentially help improve their teaching practice.
During my investigation, my data indicated that the teachers also believed that
accountability was a very large part of the new system that helped to aid in their instruction.
They thought that if they knew exactly what was expected of them to teach, they would be better
prepared to plan their lessons and deliver effective instruction. The new system had a set rubric
and guidelines for the teacher to abide by, and they saw these as consistent messages, whereas
before, they did not receive such guidance. From my data, it was apparent that the teachers
appreciated the structure that the new system afforded them.
Teacher participation in professional development also proved to help support their
instruction. The district made participating in professional development a part of the new
teacher evaluation system. Teachers were required to stay abreast of the latest researched
methods, so that they would continually improve. This was very helpful for those teachers who
changed grade levels; they were able to gain knowledge through hands-on practice as they
learned how to implement the curriculum and select appropriate supplemental resources.
Making professional development mandatory caused some teachers to think about it in new
ways: they learned from their peers through communities of learners.
Opportunities at Stuvenberry were provided through communities of learners. This
helped teachers share with their peers what they learned from the professional development they
attended. The principals were given a monthly list of the teachers and the description of the
professional development that they had attended. Sherry selected several of her teachers who

85

had acquired knowledge in areas she believed would benefit her staff to facilitate workshops and
teacher meetings.
Smart goals were also a part of the teachers’ new evaluation system. This component
also provided support for the teachers’ instruction. Teachers had to list five goals that they
would accomplish before the end of the school year. Students’ work had to be submitted as
evidence that the goals were met. This component could enable teachers to experiment with
different methods for different learning styles; doing this could possibly increase their
instructional knowledge.
As the teachers went through the pre-and post-conferences, there were several
opportunities where their instruction was supported through the completion of the pre-and postconference forms and the dialogue that occurred. Teachers had to complete forms before and
after their evaluations. The pre-conference forms helped the teachers to think critically regarding
the instruction they would deliver, how they would deliver it, and how the instruction would be
assessed. The post-forms also helped the teachers to think critically about the strengths and
weaknesses that were observed in their lesson and how they could improve their instruction.
When teachers reflect on their lessons, this could help them to think about the resources and
methods they would need to use to obtain a more successful learning outcome for their students.
The last component of the new system that supported the teachers’ instruction was the
walk-throughs. Walk-throughs were short informal observations that occurred weekly or biweekly that assessed the teachers’ effectiveness in the five domains. With these frequent
assessments of the teachers’ instructional practices, the feedback could possibly assist the
teachers as they implemented changes. Even with all of the features that seem to support
instruction, teachers still had several concerns about the new teacher evaluation system. In

86

general, the new teacher evaluation system was supporting teachers at both schools in similar
ways.
Teachers’ Concerns
Interventions can bring forth many concerns and assurances. The assurances were
addressed in the above section, and this section will address the teachers’ concerns about the new
system. Teachers had concerns about how their principals implemented the new system (at
Addison), how the classroom observations ratings were being used, and about value-added
models (VAMs).
Addison Teachers were Concerned about the Principal’s Implementation of the New
System While Stuvenberry Teachers Did Not Share this Concern
Sherry and Todd’s actual approach to the new teacher evaluation, compared to the
teachers’ understanding of how the principals were supposed to carry out their role, caused the
teachers to believe that the principals met the requirements which the district set for them. The
teachers at Addison all believed that Todd either carried out or tried to carry out the evaluation
process correctly. Pam had one complaint, however; she stated,
I believe he understands the process and from what I have heard from my colleagues in
other buildings, if I were to compare him to them, I would give him a six. That six comes
from scheduling issues; him coming in late and leaving early from the observations.
Fran also believed that Todd was doing everything that he was required to do from what she
read; he conducted two formal observations, implemented the walk-throughs, and held the preand post-conferences. Debra, on the other hand, would not provide her viewpoint on this
subject. She kept asking if the question pertained to her principal or principals in general. After
the question was asked again to emphasize that the question only pertained to her principal, she

87

declined to provide an answer. However, she did state that he had fulfilled all of the required
steps that he was instructed to complete.
The teachers at Stuvenberry all believed that Sherry’s approach to implementing the
evaluation was satisfactory. Leslie, who was the building’s union representative in 2011-2012,
confirmed that Sherry “did everything by the book,” and from what she had heard from the other
teachers in the district and from what she had read, she did not see any discrepancies. Martha
explained that in staff meetings, Sherry would provide them with information as to how she
planned to conduct the observations, so that everyone was on the “same playing field.” Martha
acknowledged that Sherry was “fair, honest, and to the point.” Sandra confirmed that Sherry
executed the process properly, and that she was fair and clear with her expectations as she
followed the district’s guidelines.
The teachers’ perspectives on how their principal carried out the new teacher evaluation
system compared to their understanding of how the process was to be implemented were fairly
positive. A conclusion that could be drawn from my data was that the principals were trying to
provide the teachers with evaluations that met the district’s expectations. However, as the new
system was implemented, the teachers experienced different levels of support from their
principals.
Teachers had the right to agree or disagree with the principal’s findings during the postconference meeting. If there was a discrepancy, there was a place on the formal evaluation form
where the teacher could indicate this, and they also had to submit a statement to refute the
principal’s findings. Some principals, if evidence was brought forth during the meeting to refute
their findings, would change their written evaluation and rating, while others would not.

88

All of the teachers at Addison held some resentment toward Todd for not allowing
evidence that they had to influence him to change their evaluation rating that he had given them.
The criticism that two of the teachers brought up was that he did not stay for the entire
observation, yet they were marked down in areas that he would have observed had he not left.
One of the teachers said that he arrived to her observation late and left too early, and when
evidence was submitted to him, he listened and they had a dialogue about the evidence, but
neither her score nor the written evaluation statement changed.
Teachers also doubted whether his pedagogical knowledge was sufficient to fairly
evaluate their lessons. Teachers had to present differentiated instruction in their lessons. One
particular teacher used differentiated instruction during her math lesson. She introduced the
concept to the entire class; once everyone had an idea of the concept, she placed the students in
groups according to their readiness level; each group was playing a different game related to the
same concept. Todd marked on her evaluation that she did not infuse differentiated instruction in
her lesson. When evidence was presented to refute his findings, he did not change the evaluation
rating. He listened attentively as he always did; however, the rating remained the same and there
were no changes made to the teacher’s written evaluation statement. Fran offered the following
insight as to why she believed Todd’s levels of communication about and support for the new
system may have been low. “Some people are so stuck in their ways and have biases that they
don’t want to see what you actually did.” Debra also spoke about her interactions with Todd
during her post-conference meeting when she tried to bring up evidence to contradict his
findings. “When you bring up the evidence that you have and tell him he would have seen it had
he not left early, he looks at you as if he doesn’t care to hear it, as if it is an excuse or
something.”

89

On the other hand, the teachers at Stuvenberry did not have any of the above grievances
to report concerning their principal’s levels of communication about or support during the postconference meetings regarding their ratings. If a teacher had evidence to provide that might
influence Sherry to change an evaluation rating, she accepted the evidence and had a dialogue
with the teacher; the teacher walked Sherry through the evidence presented and if there were any
questions the teacher addressed them. After this process, if Sherry was satisfied with the
information presented, she would change the teacher’s rating and the written statement to reflect
the changes. However, this did not occur often because Sherry rarely left the observations early
nor did she arrive late. Therefore, she was able to witness each teacher’s entire lesson. The
teachers at Stuvenberrry were pleased at Sherry’s dedication to them and the new system. She
understood that the teachers were still trying to navigate through the new system, and she
preferred that they navigate through the process together, as a team, instead of individually.
Teachers’ Concerns about How the Classroom Observations Ratings Were Being Used
Many of the teachers were aware that the district used unsatisfactory ratings in order to
layoff or dismiss teachers; however, the teachers at Stuvenberry had more knowledge about the
topic than the teachers at Addison. Pam stated, “Last year we heard that if you were effective or
highly effective you were safe, and if you receive minimally or ineffective, you would be placed
on the layoff list.” Many teachers believed that this was a way for principals to get rid of the
teachers they no longer wanted employed in the district. Fran felt that the district’s plan of
action for those teachers who were unsatisfactory was just a cover-up to rid themselves of
teachers they wanted to terminate. She explained,
So the district is going to provide feedback to these unsatisfactory teachers, but when are
they going to get this feedback? It is not like they are going to provide it during the

90

school year especially again, when the evaluation ratings are due towards the end of the
school year, and teachers know that their job is on the line if they do not get a great
score.
Other teachers agreed that the observation could be subjective and that some principals
have been known to use the process to terminate teachers’ employment. Some teachers have
become anxious and scared to go through the evaluation process. As teachers received their
evaluation rating, they noticed that there was some inconsistency with regard to how the
principals were rating teachers; some teachers who had been known not to be effective received
higher scores than some teachers who had always been known to be effective. One of the
principals provided evidence of the inconsistency that the teachers believed took place during the
observations. She explained,
There needs to be more training so that there can be consistency for teachers and
principals. I think some teachers are just getting to a point where they understand what
highly effective and effective looks like. It is not consistent with administration in terms
of who gets what. For example, a teacher here, if they went to another building may end
up with a different rating. Also, the scoring is also a topic of conversation lately. The
process of the checklist, those two worksheets from the teachers’ formal observations and
all of the Teach Scape data and compiling it into a final evaluation, that process has not
been really explained. I am sure it is done differently at each building in terms of how
you come up with that final evaluation score.
These inconsistent patterns were one of the main topics discussed in principal meetings.
Hopefully, once the inconsistencies in the ratings have been corrected, teachers will have one
less concern about the new teacher evaluation system.

91

Teachers' Concerns about VAMs
There are many different approaches to teacher evaluation, and it is a very complex topic.
With numerous teacher evaluation reforms being considered, the educational system must
identify reasonable teacher evaluation practices and protocols that accurately reflect the multiple
facets of teachers’ practice, and this may be accomplished through VAMs. VAMs are a specific
type of growth model, a diverse group of statistical techniques to isolate a teacher’s impact on his
or her students’ testing progress while controlling for other measureable factors, such as student
and school characteristics, that are outside that teacher’s control. (Di Carlo, 2012). Although
students’ standardized test scores are one source of information for school officials to use in
making judgments about teacher effectiveness, such scores alone may not be valid indicators of
teacher effectiveness, and should only be used as part of an overall evaluation.
Student performance on state tests. With regard to teacher value-added models
(VAMs), teachers were worried that the district would not be inclined to consider outside factors
that may cause students to fall behind academically. If those factors were not addressed,
teachers believed that they would be penalized for factors that were not within their control,
which would be unfair to them and their profession. Many of the teachers had valid points on
this subject. For example, Fran stated,
Do people start arguing over which students they are getting in the classroom? For an
example, my students who are resource students who I care about greatly, their scores
went under my name. Their scores didn’t go under the resource teacher; if they are
providing reading or math services for them, the scores still went under my name. I
really feel that whoever is teaching them that or those subjects, the scores should go
under their name.

92

Teachers believed that if their evaluations were mainly based on their students’ test scores, then
teachers would only want to teach those students who were capable of passing the test. They
also had a concern about the students who did not show growth. They understood that some
students have more challenges than others, and that their academic growth may not be as great as
a student who did not have as many challenges. Yet, they felt as teachers that they would have
done all that they could and the student would have showed progress. But, if someone compared
their academic growth to someone else who did not have as many challenges, it may not seem
like a lot of progress, when in fact it was due to the student’s circumstances or background.
Again, the teachers believed that the district wanted to hold them accountable for outside
factors that were looked upon as part of the teacher’s responsibilities, when in fact, some of these
factors had to do with students’ families. The educational system must locate ways to determine
the impact that teachers have on students’ learning. Until they are able to determine this impact,
teachers may not be fairly evaluated on the knowledge they convey to their students. Many
believed that some students may not be prepared when they enter school. Some students start off
at pre-school and may be more advanced than the kindergartener who just entered school for the
first time. Teachers have varied learning abilities that they have to address, and they believe that
the goal should be for each child to be making progress.
Educators believe that there should be some accountability that is placed on them for
their students’ learning. However, one test is not an indicator of the learning that a student has
acquired. The teachers were curious to know about those students who were not great test takers
or who had many challenges that affected their ability to focus, or who were not at grade level.
Martha explained,

93

Some students start off at pre-school, which I think there is something to be said about
pre-school, where some are more advanced than that kindergartener who is entering
school for the first time in a classroom. So you have varied learning abilities.
Evaluations are helpful tools to identify the strengths and weaknesses of educators so
that school districts can assist accordingly, to help teachers improve, and by doing this, students
may become academically prepared for tests, college, and employment. With additional
evaluation practices in place, I believe teachers may even welcome evaluations instead of being
wary of them.
Are These Differences Related to Differences in Principal-Teacher Trust Across the Two
Schools?
There were various teacher concerns regarding how their principal implemented the new
system, how classroom observations ratings were used, and VAMs. From my data, the
principals’ integrity was related to the differences in teachers’ concerns across the two schools,
yet my data also indicated that there were some similarities in the topics of ratings and VAMs
that the teachers at both schools exhibited.
The evidence showed that Todd and Sherry met their obligations to provide the teachers
with information about the new system. In this task, Sherry showed greater trustworthiness than
Todd. The teachers at Stuvenberry believed that Sherry showed integrity through her words and
actions for their well-being in every aspect, not just for the new system. Her demeanor towards
their learning and her willingness to provide feedback were consistent throughout the school
year. She treated the teachers as part of her educational family and not as her subordinates. The
feedback that was provided to the teachers was truthful and sincere, which led them to seek out
her advice. They knew that she wanted them to succeed.

94

The above information is in contrast to how Todd’s teachers felt about him. They
believed that he showed little to no integrity. He had not shown himself to be trustworthy with
the teachers, especially during the post-conferences. The teachers witnessed too much
inconsistency in terms of his feedback to the teachers and did not believe that he was someone
that was concerned about their growth as educators.
The principals were not responsible for the way the district used the observations ratings
or the VAMs; however, they were responsible for the teachers’ written evaluations and ratings
and the structure of each classroom. Therefore, the teachers could conclude that the principals
had a significant role in these decisions. This caused the teachers to rely on the integrity that
their principal previously displayed throughout the various components of the new system to
determine the outcome of those decisions for them.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to address the second research question: “How do
elementary teachers interpret and respond to new approaches to teacher evaluation?” I examined
what teachers learned about the CDF, the teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ levels of
communication about and support for the new system, how the observation instrument supported
teachers’ instruction, and teachers’ concerns about the new system.
As the teachers were learning the new system, it became apparent that principal-teacher
trust was a primary indicator of the teachers’ opportunities to learn about the new system. It also
became obvious that the principal’s leadership skills tremendously affected the teachers’
experiences with the new system. The way that the principals provided the new system
information to the teachers affected how the teachers viewed their principal’s leadership skills.

95

In terms of how the teachers learned about the CDF, there were numerous similarities and
differences between the two schools which were due to their principal’s leadership skills.
Stuvenberry teachers were able to acquire substantially more information regarding each
component of the new system than the teachers at Addison. This may have been due to Sherry’s
personal regard for the teachers; she ensured their knowledge about the new system was in-depth
by providing examples and demonstrations. Todd offered his teachers a rudimentary
understanding of each component of the new system.
At the same time, there were numerous differences between the two principals’ levels of
communication about and support for the new system. This goes back to how the teachers
learned about the CDF; i.e., through their principal sharing information effectively and
thoroughly, or ineffectively and briefly. Sincere listening and respect from the principals
towards the teachers helped teachers understand what was expected of them, and how they were
supported in the new system. Todd’s levels of communication about and support for the new
system were much different than Sherry’s. She genuinely listened to her teachers’ needs and
concerns and supported their efforts to learn, and she constantly informed them of changes.
Todd listened to his teachers, although his listening was not as genuine as Sherry’s.
As the teachers continued to navigate through the new system, there were many ways in
which their instruction was supported. First, they were able to plan their lessons according to
the district’s guidelines. Second, the evaluator provided feedback that would help them improve
their instruction. Third, accountability was another chance for the teachers to improve their
teaching practices. Teachers had to ensure that their teaching aligned with the district’s
guidelines; teachers would use the rubric from the CDF to ensure their accountability. Fourth,
the professional development requirements from the district offered numerous chances for them

96

to become familiar with different methods. Fifth, the new system also required teachers to
identify five goals that they wanted to accomplish before the end of the school year. The smart
goals were meant to help the teachers identify areas where they were ineffective or
inexperienced, so that they would become knowledgeable. Next, feedback on the teachers’
lessons before and after they implemented them was intended to support them. Last, during the
walk-throughs, as in the post-conferences, the teachers were provided feedback to support their
instruction.
The new system may have provided the teachers with numerous opportunities to improve
their teaching practices; still, the teachers were left with many concerns. There were concerns
about the principal’s implementation of the new system (at Addison), how the classroom
observations ratings were being used, and the VAMs. The teachers at Addison had multiple
concerns about Todd’s integrity, in terms of how he implemented the new system that left them
with numerous gaps in their learning. The classroom observations ratings were used to compile
a layoff and termination list. Then there were the VAMs that would evaluate a teacher’s
effectiveness based on their students’ standardized test scores, which the teachers believed would
be unfair due to the various factors that assist or hinder a student’s success. The integrity of the
principal was a major issue for the teachers at Addison; if the person who implemented the
evaluations was not accurate with his or her ratings and/or was unwilling to ensure that everyone
was provided extensive information that could provide them in-depth knowledge that could
potentially cause a teacher to lose his or her job.
As with the other two sections, there were many criteria in the principal-teacher trust
relationship that assisted or hindered teachers’ learning of the CDF, shaped their perceptions of

97

their principals’ levels of communication about and support for the new system, affected the
support for their instruction, and led to concerns regarding the new system.

98

Chapter 5
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study extend our understanding of principals’ knowledge and
enactment of the new teacher evaluation system, and the ways in which elementary teachers
interpret and respond to new approaches to teacher evaluation. In Chapter 3 there are three main
findings: (1) the differences in the ways principals introduced the new teacher evaluation system;
(2) how principals implemented the new system; and (3) principal-teacher trust during the
principals’ introduction and implementation of the new system. Chapter 4 presents two main
findings: (1) the opportunities that teachers had to learn about the new teacher evaluation system;
and (2) teachers’ experiences with the new teacher evaluation system. In this concluding
chapter, I will discuss the main findings from Chapters 3 and 4, the limitations of the study, the
implications for future research, the implications for practice, my interpretations of the main
findings, and my personal reflections on the main findings.
Principals’ Implementation of the New Teacher Evaluation System
As principals began to create an environment to help teachers become knowledgeable
about the new evaluation system, different goals were constructed for themselves and the
teachers that reflected their contexts, policies, and other factors (McLaughlin, 1993).
Introduction to the new system. Although the principals received the same number of
sessions and hours of training, their ways of introducing the Charlotte Danielson Framework
(CDF) to their teachers were different. There were many components that the principals had to
learn in order to transmit that knowledge in a manner from which the teachers were able not just
to understand, but also to have in-depth knowledge of the document, in order for them to be
secure with the new system. The principals, Todd and Sherry, were given the responsibility by

99

their school district of transmitting that knowledge to their teachers. The principals in my
research parallel those in Coburn’s 2005 study, where she looked at two principals in an
elementary school who also had different leadership approaches that influenced their teachers’
learning about and enactment of reading policies. Although both Sherry and Todd learned the
same information during the same training sessions, their approaches were at times notably
different as they began to introduce the components of the new system.
The teachers at Stuvenberry all reported that they were introduced to the CDF in a
manner that gave them in-depth knowledge on each component. Sherry not only reviewed the
documents, she also analyzed them with the teachers. She provided concrete examples of
methods for some of the elements in certain domains that the teachers had concerns about. She
provided the teachers with opportunities to meet in grade-level meetings to discuss the CDF, as
she made herself available to meet with each grade level to provide clarity on any sections of the
document; this showed active leadership. Because of Sherry’s active leadership role, she was
able to have a clearer understanding of what her teachers needed in order to provide them with
the appropriate support, as the leaders were able to do in the Burch and Spillane study (2003).
The leaders in Burch and Spillane’s study (2003) exhibited effective behaviors and commitment
to the reform which enabled them to get the teachers involved in creating a collaborative
environment that provided academic support. Sherry wanted her teachers to understand how the
software that the district required the principals to use, Teach Scape, worked, so she
demonstrated on her iPad what the documents looked like, what she would be looking for during
the informal evaluations, and how she would calculate their ratings. Sherry extended herself as
she went beyond the requirements set by the district, in order for her teachers to become more
effectively and efficiently inculcated in the new evaluation system. The manner in which Sherry

100

introduced the teachers to the new system led to improvements in their craft, as the teachers in
the Stevenson’s (2004) study showed as well, because the teachers’ interactions with their
students and the curriculum helped them to achieve success in their teaching practice.
The teachers at Addison were not completely satisfied with Todd’s introduction of the
CDF, causing many to be unsure about some of the components. Todd displayed different
attributes of a school leader to those of the principals examined in Youngs’ (2007) study. There
was limited evidence that he was knowledgeable enough about the district’s new teacher
evaluation system policy to provide effective and efficient help to the teachers in interpreting and
enacting it. Todd reviewed the document only well enough for the teachers to know what it
contained, instead of what was involved in each component of the new system. As with the
walk-throughs, Todd did not mention that the district required the principals to use specific
software. Todd did not provide a clear understanding of what the walk-throughs would involve.
There were no examples of different elements of the domains provided or any mention that the
teachers were granted any opportunities to collaborate with their peers to further their
understanding of the CDF. Todd only mentioned that he reviewed the document with his staff
and answered or tried to answer any questions or concerns they brought forth. The limited
information provided to the teachers left them frustrated and disappointed with his leadership
skills.
The principals needed to have a significant knowledge base about their job
responsibilities to transmit knowledge effectively to the teachers. Todd and Sherry displayed
different levels of competence regarding the components of the new teacher evaluation system.
From their consistency in completing the teachers’ observations and walk-throughs, both

101

principals proved that they had some knowledge of the CDF. However, Todd did not display as
much knowledge about the content of the CDF and the walk-through process as Sherry.
Implementing the new teacher evaluation system. During the post-conference
meetings, the principal provided the teachers with a summary of their observed lesson. Each
domain and the elements of the evaluation system were reviewed. Then the principal provided
each teacher with evidence corresponding to the rating that was given. The teachers at
Stuvenberry were very satisfied with the level of communication from Sherry during the postconferences. They were not wary about receiving feedback from her, on account of her recent
experience as an elementary teacher and the consistency she showed during the evaluated
observations and walk-throughs. The more knowledge the principal has of the domains and
elements, as shown in Youngs’ 2007 study, the more they are able to provide significant
feedback that may influence the teachers’ instructional growth. Sherry was able to provide
suggestions that were useful to her teachers on account of her greater depth of knowledge of the
evaluation system as well as her pedagogical knowledge. The teachers in the study felt that her
knowledge of the new system and curriculum was excellent.
Sherry always provided evidence of why she gave the teachers a particular rating. She
was fair in her observations, and she did not worry that the teachers would feel differently. She
provided an environment for her teachers where they could voice their concerns and opinions,
and she was respectful of those concerns and opinions. If a teacher believed that a rating did not
reflect their performance, Sherry would examine the evidence and make the necessary
corrections to their score. However, this was rarely a concern because Sherry had the
pedagogical knowledge required to perform and evaluate the observations effectively. The
teachers welcomed her suggestions and made use of them. They were also provided with

102

opportunities to receive additional feedback if they chose to implement any of the provided
suggestions or any other ideas that they felt would help their teaching practice.
The teachers at Addison were not satisfied with the level of communication that they
received from Todd during the post-conferences. Todd allowed the teachers to be forthcoming
as they communicated their apprehensions and viewpoints regarding their rating. However, he
was unable to internalize the teachers’ needs and desires during the post-conferences to support
them as they navigated through the new system. Todd’s lack of respect for his teachers was
exhibited as he disregarded evidence that the teachers brought forth to contradict his findings on
their teaching effectiveness.
Principal-teacher trust. Trust is a critical factor as we consider school community
members. At all levels, trust can enable productivity, and without it, progress can be inhibited.
In examining the interactions of these two principals and six teachers, this study reveals and
builds on how relational trust plays a major part in transforming educators, their knowledge, and
their relationships within their communities. Relational trust may also determine a principal’s
leadership role as it pertains to the teachers’ responses to new approaches to teacher evaluation,
and how teachers interpret and respond to such evaluation (Jarzabkowski, 2002). Personal
regard and integrity played important roles in my study, in which the differences between the
two principals were prevalent (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).
Personal regard. Principal leadership was a key factor as the principals began to create
an environment where they helped the teachers become knowledgeable and gain a significant
understanding of the new teacher evaluation system. Sherry’s leadership qualities embodied
personal regard for her teachers’ learning. She found it necessary to make sure that the teachers
had an understanding of the attributes for each ranking that they could receive during their

103

observations. The principal in Ebmeier’s (2003) study showed similarities to Sherry, as both
gave encouragement in their feedback, provided emotional support, and modeled experiences,
extending themselves to encourage improvement in teaching practice. Sherry also continued to
allow the teachers to schedule their own observations beyond the point where she was obligated
to do. Through Sherry’s in-depth reviewing and the examples she provided concerning the
information in the CDF, the teachers gained more knowledge than their counterparts at Addison.
Her efforts provided various opportunities for the teachers to learn and grow emotionally,
socially, and academically, as she interpreted and implemented the new system.
Todd also showed personal regard when he too extended himself to his teachers as he
continued to permit them to schedule their observations. Yet no other information was provided
that indicated whether Todd extended himself any further to the teachers. Todd did not provide
them with a solid understanding of the CDF. The district required that the principals review the
document, and the teachers believed that Todd did review the document; however, he did not
provide an in-depth overview of the information it contained. Bryk and Schneider’s 2002 study
examined a principal at Thomas Elementary in the Chicago School District, where the principal
showed a lack of personal regard towards a group of teachers, which caused them to distrust the
principal. Because of Todd’s lack of regard for the teachers at Addison, they too had
reservations concerning his leadership skills.
Principal-teacher relational trust addresses the fact that other members in the community
have an important role in meeting their responsibilities, so that other members can meet their
goals. Integrity is an awareness that a moral-ethical viewpoint leads one’s work, which is also a
significant role in the principal-teacher relational trust theory.

104

Integrity. The principals’ integrity was detected across both of the schools as they
implemented the classroom observation ratings. The principals had the task of observing each
teacher twice a year and to rate them in five domains, write up a summary of the overall
observations, and calculate a final rating. During the observations, the teachers expected the
principals to be unbiased and to award them the rating that they had earned. However, the
principal at Stuvenberry showed more integrity in the new system process than the principal at
Addison.
Sherry was consistent as she observed the teachers’ lessons. She was on time and stayed
for the duration of the observed lesson. Her feedback was encouraging and positive, which led
the teachers to want to implement the suggestions she provided. They also trusted her expertise
and respected her input. Her determination to be fair with the teachers was also something that
she prided herself on. She depended on her teachers to be the best educators that they could be,
as they trusted her to be the best leader that she could be. There was interdependence between
Sherry and the teachers, similar to that described by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) in their
study. Both relied on the other to ensure that everyone in the school community performed their
task to the best of their ability, and that both could depend on the other for assistance. The
integrity that Sherry exhibited brought relief to the teachers because they had heard stories
regarding other principals in the district who were unfair and awarded teachers’ poor ratings in
the hope that they would be terminated. Sherry was a leader who honored and respected the
teachers, their teaching practice, and their concerns and opinions.
There was little to no interdependence between the principal and the teachers at Addison.
The integrity that Todd exhibited was not something that the teachers welcomed. Todd unfairly
rated the teachers when he did not stay the duration of the observed lesson. When the teachers

105

questioned their rating, he listened, yet was unwilling to review the evidence that was provided
to refute his findings. Teachers complained that Todd allowed some to release certain students
from being present during the observation. Many teachers also believed that ineffective
colleagues were given satisfactory ratings because they were liked, while some who were
effective were given unsatisfactory ratings because they were disliked. The inconsistent manner
in which Todd implemented the new system left many teachers resentful towards the process, the
district, and Todd.
As the principals implemented the new system, which was associated with the principalteacher trust relationship, the findings in Chapter 4 connect to those in Chapter 3. Chapter 4
addressed how the teachers interpreted and responded to the new approaches to evaluation,
which was also found to be associated with principal-teacher trust relationships.
Opportunities that Teachers had to Learn about the New Teacher Evaluation System
As new reforms were introduced, teachers had a difficult task of interpreting and
responding in ways that were beneficial to all members of their school community. To
implement the new system effectively, they not only had to have knowledge of it, they also had
to understand it. Teachers from both schools experienced various ways in which they learned
about the new system.
The district required principals to hold a meeting at the beginning of the school year to
introduce the teachers to the new system. Although both principals attended the same number of
professional development sessions, and the same sessions, they introduced the CDF in very
different ways. The teachers at Addison believed that their knowledge of the CDF was limited
because Todd only provided an overview of the document. Therefore, they sought out other
opportunities to learn about the new system. One teacher took a course that provided her with

106

in-depth knowledge of the components of the new system. Another reread the document and
sought additional information from the Michigan Department of Education website to gain the
knowledge she felt she had not received from her principal.
On the other hand, the teachers at Stuvenberry did not have to seek assistance outside
their building to learn about the CDF. All of the teachers were provided with thorough
information by their principal. Her presentation at the beginning and throughout the year
provided the teachers with visuals, as well as explicit examples of the elements of certain
domains that they found ambiguous and needed clarification. The teachers were provided with
opportunities to learn from and collaborate with one another in their grade-level meetings, which
were also important to the teachers in the Coburn (2001) study, where they made sense of the
policies through discussions with their colleagues. The teachers in Coburn’s (2001) study
adapted, adopted, combined, and/or ignored messages from the environment through
collaborative measures. Sherry kept the teachers abreast of any changes in the new system, and
continuously supported them in their teaching practice, so that they could become highly
effective teachers.
Teachers’ Experiences with the New Teacher Evaluation System
With any new reform, teachers may have both positive and negative experiences. It was
those experiences provided to the teachers at Stuvenberry and Addison by their principals that
helped to shape their interpretation of and responses to the new evaluation system.
The Stuvenberry teachers’ experiences proved to be more positive than those of their
counterparts at Addison. This left the Stuvenberry teachers with fewer concerns than those at
Addison. Some of the concerns were: (a) the perception that the teachers had regarding the level

107

of their principal’s communication about and support for the new system; (b) the observation
ratings; and (c) their principal’s competence and personal regard.
The first concern dealt with the teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ levels of
communication about and support for the new system. The principals had to gain knowledge of
the new system before they were able to transfer that knowledge to their teachers; again, many
similarities and differences were noticed. Sincere listening and respect were the foundation of
the differences in principal-teacher trust across the two schools. The leadership skills that Sherry
displayed could be described as very effective, in direct contrast to those of Todd. Both Sherry
and the principal in Burch and Spillane’s (2003) study valued their teachers’ insight and were
involved in and committed to the new reform. Sherry was able to create an environment where
both teachers and principal could provide and receive suggestions and feedback. She was very
respectful of her teachers’ concerns about the new system, providing opportunities for them to
gain additional feedback of their teaching practice and to collaborate with their peers.
Todd was the complete opposite of the principals in both Burch and Spillane’s (2003) and
Ebmeier’s (2003) studies. While he at times evinced the ability to listen to the viewpoints of the
teachers, he chose to ignore what they shared, leaving them disgruntled towards him and the new
reform. Todd was unable to create an environment of trust between himself and the teachers;
they perceived him as a person who valued only those teachers with whom he had a close
relationship. The principals in Ebmeier’s (2003) study were active leaders who created a work
environment that fostered satisfaction, trust, morals, and a sense of community amongst the staff;
Todd was unable to be that active leader for the teachers at Addison.
The second concern that the teachers expressed was how the classroom observation
ratings were being used. Many believed that if they received an unsatisfactory rating they would

108

be provided with a plan of action to help them become a more effective teacher, while others
feared that an unsatisfactory rating would result in their termination from the district. This lack
of accurate information about consequences of their ratings caused many teachers to feel distress
and unease about the new system.
The third concern expressed by the teachers was the competence level and personal
regard demonstrated by the principals. Teachers at both schools believed that their principal
provided all of the information that was required; still the teachers at Addison expressed more
concerns than those at Stuvenberry.
Youngs’ (2007) study pointed out that principals with significant subject and pedagogical
knowledge may help new teachers to obtain and apply that knowledge. The teachers at Addison
believed that Todd lacked the pedagogical knowledge needed to evaluate their lessons. He was
unable to point out specific instructions that they provided in their lesson that correlated with
some of the elements in the domains. The feedback provided to them after their evaluation was
not useful to their teaching practice, and the teachers were unable to implement the majority of
his suggestions. As far as personal regard, he failed to stay for the entire duration of the lesson,
and this caused him to miss many of the characteristics that he needed to observe to rate the
teacher’s effectiveness accurately. Yet Todd did show some personal regard as he continued to
allow the teachers to schedule their own observations when he was no longer obligated to
provide this courtesy.
The teachers at Stuvenberry felt that Sherry had a high level of competence and personal
regard for them. Prior research has shown that principals who have strong pedagogical
knowledge, and who provide guidance and support, can help teachers improve their teaching
practice (Ebmeier, 2003; Coburn, 2005; Youngs, 2007). The teachers felt that Sherry’s

109

pedagogical knowledge was satisfactory, and they welcomed and asked for suggestions to help
with their teaching practice. Sherry’s thorough explanation of the CDF was very beneficial to
the teachers’ understanding and helped them to gain knowledge of their role in the new system.
They believed that Sherry prepared them sufficiently; they did not have to seek additional
support for the new system outside the building. The teachers were grateful that Sherry had
enough experience in the classroom to help them become highly effective teachers.
I believe that the findings determine the role principal leadership plays in teachers’
responses to new approaches and how elementary teachers interpret and respond to new
approaches to teacher evaluation. Principals and teachers construct different goals for
themselves that reflect their contexts, policies, and other factors (McLaughlin, 1993). In order
for principals to be effective leaders who benefit all members of the school community in a way
that produces principal-teacher trust and meets the needs of the teachers, a clear and specific plan
must be generated with input from all the members. If this is done, I believe principal-teacher
trust, a quality that demonstrates an effective leader, could assist teachers in how they interpret
and respond to new reforms (Coburn, 2001). Further research is needed to examine the other
factors that lead principals to take part in various roles as they and teachers respond to new
reforms.
Limitations/Implications for Future Research
As with any research, my study comes with a cautionary list of limitations. One of the
strengths of my study is that the teachers and principals were people who worked with one
another. I was able to look across three teachers in one school and document what they believed
their experiences with the principal were, and what the principal believed their experiences with
the teachers were. A limitation, however, was that neither the teachers’ classroom observations,

110

nor the manner in which the principals implemented the new system, were observed me.
Findings were based solely on the interview responses provided by the participants. While there
is no way to determine whether the principals would have demonstrated the same knowledge or
leadership under observation that they stated they displayed in their responses, or whether the
teachers’ interpretation of and responses to the new system were as they claimed, I have
documented principals’ and teachers’ reports about leadership, and how the teachers interpreted
and responded to the new system.
As a result, one implication for future research is that the reason for the small sample of
two principals and six teachers, and two schools in one school district, allowed me to go indepth, and it permitted me to develop some theories about the new teacher evaluation system. I
did not interview or collect data from all the teachers at either school, or from all the schools in
the district. It would be very difficult, therefore, to generalize the results to all principals and
teachers facing evaluation reform.
Thus, another implication for future research would be the range of principals’
knowledge regarding the Charlotte Danielson Framework; principals may have various
perspectives and interpret the document in vastly different ways. If this is the case, the teachers’
knowledge would also be vastly different, and this may lead them to interpret and respond to the
new system in different ways.
Therefore, the last implication for future research is that my study also looked closely at
the implementation of a classroom observation instrument; a different study might have looked
at the implications of both the classroom observation instrument and teacher VAMs.

111

Interpretations of Main Findings
As I interviewed participants, transcribed the interviews, and analyzed the data, I came to
numerous interpretations of why there were differences between Sherry and Todd. Certain
factors seemed to contribute to Todd’s lack of personal regard, competence, integrity, and
respect. I believe that one factor may have been gender. Todd was a male who may have
thought he needed to be territorial and dominant in his position. In addition, Todd may not have
had any desire to be a facilitator or he may not have had the background of being a facilitator…
just a dictator. As for Sherry, a female, with the majority of her staff being female, her
personality type may have been one of a facilitator who believed in sharing responsibilities, and
she did not concern herself with how others perceived her. Sherry had developed a relationship
with her teachers, and this made it easier for her to be a facilitator, and not a dictator.
Race may also have been a factor that could help explain some of the differences between
the two principals. Todd was African American, and the majority of the teacher population at
Addison were Caucasian females. From my background, African American male principals can
be perceived as intimidating and difficult not only to females in general, but to Caucasian
females in particular, especially if the principal does not appease everyone’s concerns. If this
was the perception many teachers had of Todd, this may have been the reason why they did not
trust him.
Sherry, a Caucasian female with the majority of her teachers at Stuvenberry also
Caucasian female, was perceived to be soft spoken, friendly, and welcoming; these are three
characteristics that may lead someone to believe that a person is kind and trustworthy. The
teachers did not believe that she was someone who would break the rules because she did not

112

seek conflict, just the opposite. They knew that she was fair and not biased; therefore, there was
no reason for them to be confrontational with her.
Todd and Sherry’s differing views of teacher learning can be attributed to their many
differences. Sherry was perceived to be a principal who understood that teachers needed to be
aware of the different factors that may hinder students’ learning, that all students have different
learning styles, and that their background was an important factor that would help the teachers
understand who their students were emotionally, socially, and academically. Again, Sherry had
taught in this district for many years, and the teachers were trained in differentiated learning.
Understanding the differentiated instruction approach may have contributed to her providing her
teachers with the opportunities to collaborate to learn about the new TE and to use multiple
strategies to help the teachers understand the new TE. All Sherry’s teaching strategies and
approaches were aligned with the Danielson Framework. The data showed that Todd seemed to
be an educator who had a direct instruction background, which is the opposite of the Danielson
Framework. A few factors may have contributed to this: his training in his previous districts was
in direct instruction and/or the fact that he had been taught direct instruction.
Implications for Practice
The study has implications for school districts. Districts may find it valuable to review
the changes to their teacher evaluation system with their teachers and principals as a whole, as
well as to discuss the importance of the criteria of relational trust theory (Bryk & Schneider,
2002). Educators must also have a clear understanding of how the curriculum is to be interpreted
and implemented as it pertains to the new teacher evaluation system. Having a solid foundation
in what makes an effective educator and how an effective educator implements instruction will
assist them to meet the criteria of a highly effective teacher. The results of the study can be

113

shared with districts, teachers and principals who are interested in principal-teacher relational
trust, to further understanding of how principals and teachers respond to reform.
This study shows that effective principal behaviors and teachers’ commitment to reform
can lead to improvement (Burch & Spillane, 2003). Also, principals’ leadership abilities and
their interpretation and enactment of policy can influence how teachers comprehend and enact
that policy as well (Coburn, 2005). On-going collaboration can help teachers bring about change
in their knowledge and practices. This topic needs to be explored amongst staff within each
school building, especially the principal. Principals should be aware of the power they possess
and use that power to initiate and aid teachers in uniting among themselves and their peers to
ensure that all stakeholders prosper academically and socially.
The study has potential implications for efforts to promote principal-teacher relational
trust and to support the characteristics of a strong and effective leader. Principals are the
cornerstone of the community. When they are able to display positive leadership characteristics,
their staff members may be more willing to follow their lead and take greater risks (Ebmeier,
2003). When there is proactive principal leadership, social discourse can take place to provide
sincere listening, support, appreciation for the opinions of others, and content and pedagogical
knowledge (Burch & Spillane, 2003; Ebmeier, 2003; Coburn, 2005).
In terms of the implications of my own research and teaching, it will contribute to the
relationships between principals’ and teachers’ actions on reform, principal-teacher relational
trust, peer collaboration, and the implementation and interpretation of the new teacher evaluation
system. In addition, the practical and policy discussions about what it means for principals and
teachers to possess effective characteristics that empower them both will empower students both,
academically and socially.

114

Reflection
Based on my professional background, ethnicity, and current position as a college
professor, I have reflected on the main findings in Chapter 3. Three main findings concerned the
role that principal leadership played in teachers’ responses to new approaches to teacher
evaluation. First, I identified differences in the ways Todd and Sherry introduced the new
teacher evaluation system. Sherry was uniquely different in the manner that she selected to
inform her teachers about the new system. I believe that since she was a former teacher within
the district, she had a connection with them and developed a respect for them and their careers,
and this prompted her to want to see them grow continuously as educators; in addition, the
students would also grow academically. I believe Todd was still at the beginning stage of
understanding the culture of the school district where he was a novice. He may have also
believed that it would be safer to follow the guidelines until he had a better understanding of the
district and of the teachers he was charged with.
Second, I looked at differences in how Todd and Sherry implemented the new system.
Again, I believe that Sherry had a connection to the school community and she longed to see the
teachers become successful educators; when teachers learn, the students learn. This is why she
went into depth with helping the teachers understand the TE document, providing collaborative
opportunities for the teachers to learn from one another, providing examples of the elements in
some of the domains, making herself available to the teachers at all times, and building a trusting
relationship with them. Sherry was vested in the community where she herself once lived and
frequently saw the children that she taught.
I went to school from grades K–12 in the first school district that I taught in, and the
conditions were more challenging than they were when I was a student. As a teacher, at times, I

115

could not understand the plight of my students’ parents, but I still felt a personal connection to
my students and I too extended myself to them and the parents. I believe that as a product of that
school district, my duty was to give back to my students through the best education that I could
provide to them. I really do not believe that Todd saw himself as part of the school community,
but as an outsider who was trying to fit in. He was unable to build a trusting relationship with
the teachers; he was not receptive to collaborative teacher efforts; he was uncompromising with
the teacher’s ratings; and he was very dominant in his position, where he believed he had the first
and final decision in all manners. His not being able to become a part of this very close-knit
district may have led to some of the mistrust the teachers felt towards him, and this may have
caused Todd to be territorial.
When I first transferred from one school district to another school district, it was very
difficult to become acclimated to their rules in the first few years. I too alienated many teachers
because I was unable to understand and abide by their rules. However, after speaking with other
teachers and personnel about the changes that I experienced going from one district to another,
and them explaining reasons behind some of their rules that I did not understand, I began to
become a part of the school culture. This made me feel more comfortable with expressing my
concerns and opinions, and the school community began to accept me as part of their
community. It may be that Todd has not gotten to a comfortable place with his staff and that
they are still trying to understand one another.
Third, I looked at the levels of principal-teacher trust during Todd and Sherry’s
introduction and implementation of the new system. As an African American teacher who has
taught in two urban school districts, I was frustrated that Todd was either unaware or lacked
sincerity such that the teachers in his building had little to no trust in him or in his leadership and

116

instructional skills. They believed that he lacked the content and pedagogical knowledge to
benefit their craft and they did not consider his instructional suggestions. The teachers found it
difficult to disclose to him how they felt about his leadership and instructional skills, for they
knew that their opinions/concerns would not be addressed. He was charged with ensuring that
not only the students, but also the teachers were provided the best instructional leader to assist
with learning. However, that the teachers were not receiving this to their satisfaction was very
disheartening because the students, who looked like me, would experience academic
disadvantage in the end.
Sherry was both an exceptional Caucasian instructional leader and overall leader, and the
teachers believed she had the content and pedagogical knowledge to create a learning
environment for both staff and students, who were majority African American. Her words and
actions informed the entire school community that she cared about everyone’s well being, and
the teachers respected and appreciated her for extending herself to ensure that everyone had the
opportunity to learn and to be successful.

117

Table 2A: Domains for Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2013)
Domain 1:
Planning and
Preparation

Domain 2:
The Classroom
Environment

Domain 3:
Instruction

Domain 3:
Professional
Responsibilities

a) Demonstrating
knowledge of
content and
pedagogy

a) Creating an
environment of
respect and
rapport

a)Communicating
with students

a) Reflecting on
teaching

b) Demonstrating
knowledge of
students

b) Establishing a
culture for
learning

b) Using
questioning and
discussion
techniques

b) Maintaining
accurate records

c) Setting
instructional
outcomes

c) Managing
classroom
procedures

c) Engaging
students in
learning

c)Communicating
with families

d) Demonstrating
knowledge of
resources

d) Managing
student behavior

d) Using
assessment in
instruction

d) Participating in
the professional
community

e) Designing
coherent instruction

e) Organizing
physical space

e) Demonstrating
flexibility and
responsiveness

e) Growing and
developing
professionally

f) Designing student
assessments

f) Showing
professionalism

118

APPENDICES

119

Appendix A
Figure 1. Relational Trust Theory (Bryk & Schneider, 2002)

Principal

Teacher

CV
TC
AS
PLB
PL
PTRT

Principals and teachers depend on one another to ensure that the school community functions
properly. The principal and teachers must work together to create a clear vision for the school.
Teachers must work collaboratively to ensure that they understand the new reforms. Principals
must be active supervisors that model what is expected from the teachers. Principals must
exhibit leadership behaviors to the teachers that help to facilitate social and academic growth.
Principals must have exceptional leadership skills to ensure that reforms are comprehended and
executed properly. As you can see, each component in the above diagram, beginning with the
inner circle, builds on the next component to reach a principal-teacher relational trust
relationship that will assist all groups learn and grow socially and academically.
CV—Clear Vision
TC—Teacher Collaboration
AS—Active Supervision
PLB—Principal Leader Behaviors
PL—Principal Leadership
PTRT—Principal-Teacher Relational Trust
120

Appendix B: Principal Interview Protocol Questions
Study of Educators’ Experiences with New Approaches to Teacher Evaluation

1.

Can you tell me about your current responsibilities as principal and how long you have
served in this role? (Probe for how long they have worked as principal at their current
school and in their current district, how long they taught K-12 and other schools/districts
where they have worked)

2.

Can you describe the current approach to teacher evaluation at your school? (Probe for
the name of the classroom observation instrument used at their school, other sources of
teacher evaluation data that are used, whether they feel knowledgeable about the
approach to teacher evaluation at their school, whether the same approach is used
throughout their district)

3.

What type of formal training did you receive with regard to the new teacher evaluation
system (Probe for who provided the training, the length of the training, the content of the
training, and whether principals engaged in practice ratings during the training?)

4.

How many times have you observed each teacher at your school this year? (Probe for
whether the observations have been announced/scheduled, whether anyone else conducts
the observations, whether teachers have to provide a lesson plan prior to the observation,
how many more times each teacher will be observed by the end of this school year)

5.

Do you feel that the number of formal classroom observations is sufficient for assessing
your level of teaching performance?

6.

Do you meet with each teacher before and/or after you observe them? (Probe for what is
discussed in these meetings, the length of these meetings, whether each meeting is
approximately the same length of time) Do these meetings vary by length of service or
how many times a teacher has already been evaluated in a given year?

7.

What kind of feedback do you provide to teachers after you observe them? (Probe for
whether the feedback is oral or written, whether they feel skilled at providing feedback,
how teachers would know if their ratings were satisfactory or unsatisfactory)

8.

Has the approach to teacher evaluation in your school or district changed over time?
(Probe for how and when it changed, what role is the state of Michigan and the federal
government playing in these changes)

9.

Could you describe the strengths and weaknesses of the new approach to teacher
evaluation in your school or district? (Probe for who sees these as strengths and
weaknesses: the principal, the teachers, the parents, others)

121

10.

Could you describe the ranking system that is part of the new teacher evaluation system?
(Probe for what rankings they expect teachers to get and what rankings will get teachers
identified as in need of improvement)

11.

If a teacher receives unsatisfactory ratings, what happens? (Probe for whether the teacher
is assigned to an instructional coach, to external professional development, to mandated
meetings with the principal; probe for how the districts uses results of observations/other
teacher evaluation data)

12.

How do you/would you feel if your district used the following in evaluating teachers?
a) student performance on state tests, b) student attendance rates, c) teacher participation
in professional development, d) teacher portfolios, e) classroom observations by trained
outside evaluators (i.e., not the principal),, f) student surveys, g) self-assessments with
specific evidence

122

Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol Questions
Study of Educators’ Experiences with New Approaches to Teacher Evaluation

1.

Can you tell me about your current teaching responsibilities and how long you have
served in this role? (Probe for how long they have worked as a teacher at their current
school and in their current district, how long they have taught K-12 and other
schools/districts where they have worked)

2.

Can you describe the current approach to teacher evaluation at your school? (Probe for
the name of the classroom observation instrument used at their school, other sources of
teacher evaluation data that are used, whether they feel knowledgeable about the
approach to teacher evaluation at their school, whether the same approach is used
throughout their district)

3.

How many times have you been observed at your school this year as part of the formal
teacher evaluation process? (Probe for whether the observations have been announced/
scheduled, who conducts the observations, whether they have to provide a lesson plan to
their principal prior to the observation, how many more times they will be observed by
the end of this school year)

4.

Do you feel that the number of formal classroom observations is sufficient for assessing
your level of teaching performance?

5.

Do you meet with the principal before and/or after they observe you? (Probe for what is
discussed in these meetings)

6.

What kind of feedback does the principal provide to you before/after they observe you?
(Probe for whether the feedback is oral or written, whether the principal is skilled at
providing feedback, how the teacher would know if their ratings were satisfactory or
unsatisfactory)

7.

In what ways has the use of the Framework for Teaching instrument and the feedback
provided caused you to change your teaching practices?

8.

Has the approach to teacher evaluation in your school or district changed over time?
(Probe for how and when it changed)

9.

Could you describe the strengths and weaknesses of the new approach to teacher
evaluation in your school or district? (Probe for who sees these as strengths and
weaknesses: the principal, the teachers, the parents, others)

10.

If a teacher receives unsatisfactory ratings, what happens? (Probe for whether the teacher
is assigned to an instructional coach, to external professional development, to mandated
meetings with the principal; probe for how the districts uses results of observations/other
teacher evaluation data)
123

11.

How do you/would you feel if your district used the following in evaluating teachers?
a) student performance on state tests, b) student attendance rates, c) teacher participation
in professional development, d) teacher portfolios, e) classroom observations by trained
outside evaluators (i.e., not the principal), f) student surveys, g) self-assessments with
specific evidence

124

Appendix D: CONSENT FORM FOR TEACHERS/PRINCIPALS
You have been asked to participate in a research study to gain an understanding of educators’
experiences with the new approaches to teacher evaluation. You were selected to be a participant
because you are either a principal who administers the new teacher evaluation system or a
teacher who has been evaluated using the new teacher evaluation system. The purpose of this
study is to examine educators’ experiences with the new approaches to teacher evaluation.
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to respond to questions about teacher
evaluation, your interpretation of the new approaches associated with teacher evaluation, the preand post-conferences, and the rating system.
There are very minor risks associated with this study to the teacher or principal. The information
is de-identified (i.e., will not include the teacher’s, school’s, district’s nor student’s name).
Neither a teacher nor a principal should feel that this research forms a part of his/her
performance evaluation.
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you will receive no monetary gifts.
This study is confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. No identifiers linking
you to the study will be included in any sort of report that might be published. Research records
will be stored securely and Nina Hasty or faculty member Peter Youngs will have access to the
records. In addition, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) would have access to the data in the
event of an audit. If you decide to participate, you are free to refuse to answer any of the
questions that may make you uncomfortable. You can withdraw at any time without you
relations with the university, job, benefits, etc., being affected. You can contact Dr. Peter
Youngs (517-353-4348 or pyoungs@msu.edu) with any questions about this study.
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers to my
satisfaction. I have been given a copy of this consent document for my records. By signing this
document, I consent to participate in the study.
Signature: _________________________________________

Date: ____________

Signature of Investigator: _____________________________

Date: ____________

125

REFERENCES

126

REFERENCES

Baker, E., Barton, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H., Linn, R., Ravitch, D.,
Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R., & Shepard, L. (2010). Problems with the use of student
test scores to evaluate teachers. Economic Policy Institute, briefing paper no. 278.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman &
Company.
Brandt, R. (1996). On a new direction for teacher evaluation: A conversation with Tom
McGreal. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 30-33.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Burch, P. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject
matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal,
103(5), 519-535.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1984, May) Teachers’ thought process. Occasional Paper No.
72, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Institute for Research on Teaching.
National Institute of Education (ED), Washington, DC.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the
organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
53(3), 285-328.

127

Di Carlo, M. (2012). How to use value-added measures right. Educational Leadership, 70(3),
38-41.
Duncan, A. (2009). The race to the top begins: Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07242009.html
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An
investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 110-141.
Fuller, E. (2011). Can we fairly evaluate teachers using student achievement? Education
Issues. Retrieved from http://fullerlook.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/teacherevaluations/
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are
teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of
Education, 79(4), 79-107.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of
classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and
elementary classrooms. New York: Foundation for Child Development. Retrieved from
http:// www.fed-us.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=507559
Harris, D. N., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2010). Value-added: Assessing teachers’ contributions to
student achievement. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher
quality: A handbook (pp. 251–282). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoy, W.K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty
trust in schools. In W.K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing
schools (pp.181-207). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2002). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Journal of
Educational Inquiry, 3(2), 1-20.
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2010). Identifying effective classroom
practices using student achievement data (Working Paper No. 15830). Retrieved from
National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15803
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.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.
128

McLaughlin, M. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J.W. Little &
M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts. (pp. 79103). New York: Teachers College Press.
Marshall, K. (1996). How I confronted HSPS (hyperactive superficial principal syndrome) and
began to deal with the heart of the matter. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(5), 336-345.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher
performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242-247.
Merriman, S. (1988). Writing the case study report. In case study research education: A
qualitative approach (pp.185-206). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
MET Project. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations
with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, Washington: Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Michigan AFT. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.aftmichigan.org
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and
student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4),
33-53.
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.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and
school reform (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher
evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123-141.
Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal
and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’
practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346.
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and
practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

129

Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of
classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational
Researcher, 38(2), 109-119.
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago:
Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district
implementation. Consortium on Chicago School Research. University of Chicago Urban
Education Institute.
Smith, W. F., & Andews, L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a
difference. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 303(3), 23-28.
Steele, J. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B.M. (2011). Using student performance to evaluate
teachers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org
Stevenson, H. J. (2004). Teachers’ informal collaboration regarding technology. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 129-144.
Stiggins, R. J., & Duke, D. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on
teacher evaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, E. S. & Tyler, J. H. (2011). The effect of evaluation on performance: Evidence from
longitudinal student achievement data of mid-career teachers (Working Paper No.
16877). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16877
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008, Jan). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public
education. Washington, DC: Education Sector. Retrieved from
http://www.educatorsector.org
Tschannen-Moran, M., (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W.K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.
Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V., Esworthy, C., Grasley, E., Kaisler, G., McIlvain, D., &
Stephan, M. (2009). Crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about RTI:

130

Understanding and apply differentiated classroom instruction. The Reading Teacher,
63(1), 84-87.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137.
Youngs, P., Jones, N., & Low, M. (2011). How beginning special and general education
elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access professional resources.
Teacher College Record, 113(7), 1506-1540.

131