WORKING ON COHERENCE WHEREVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET 

HOW TEACHERS CONTRIBUTE TO POLICY COHERENCE 

THROUGH ADAPTIVE RESPONSES TO RELATED DEMANDS 

OF EVALUATION AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY 

By 

Dirk Frederick Zuschlag 

 
 

 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of 

Educational Policy – Doctor of Philosophy 

2021 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

WORKING ON COHERENCE WHEREVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET 

HOW TEACHERS CONTRIBUTE TO POLICY COHERENCE 

THROUGH ADAPTIVE RESPONSES TO RELATED DEMANDS 

OF EVALUATION AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY 

By 

Dirk Frederick Zuschlag 

Teacher quality is a perennially fertile field for education reformers. Among teacher 

quality policies, two of the more highly touted and widely adopted are state-mandated systems of 

teacher evaluation and formalized models of teacher collaborative teams, often known generally 

as professional learning communities (PLCs). Indeed, despite a substantial divergence in policy 

design and implementation process, many districts and schools have by now routinized the 

annual re-enactment of evaluation and PLCs policies, thereby engendering a recurring challenge 

of “crafting coherence” (Honig and Hatch, 2004). Teachers in particular, both individually and in 

PLCs, must fashion responses to disparate demands, which interact to affect but not determine 

those responses. How teachers respond holds important implications, not only for the iterative 

implementation and effects of potentially incoherent policies such as PLC and evaluation, but 

also for larger teacher and school improvement efforts and outcomes. 

This explanatory multiple case study in two public high schools investigates teacher 

agentic responses to dual teacher quality demands within distinct but related PLC/evaluation 

structures applying a structure-agency perspective (Coburn, 2016). It addresses the following 

research questions: (1) How, if at all, do teachers adapt their agentic responses to performance 

evaluation and professional learning community demands as they respond to the structures of 

both; and (2) how, if at all, does the relationship between structures of performance evaluation 

and professional learning community shape teachers’ adaptive responses? 

Results show that teachers generally compartmentalize their respective responses to PLC 

and evaluation demands. Importantly, however, periods of compartmentalization are punctuated 

at points in the evaluation process. Punctuation occurs when structural opportunities open for 

teachers to advantageously adapt their response to one demand to serve their response to the 

other demand. Although teachers vary in the timing and form of punctuation, four identifiable 

types of adaptive responses emerge from teacher agentic action within the related structures 

administrators implement. A typology of these strategies is proposed based on the placement of 

each along two intersecting dimensions. When teachers employ the strategies, they can reduce 

the cost of evaluation engagement, while increasing the value of PLC participation. At the same 

time, teachers were in effect able to enhance the coherence of their responses. 

Further results show that related PLC/evaluation structures are characterized by a design 

orientation--primarily commitment or control (Rowan, 1990)—and a goal orientation--primarily 

external or internal relative to the PLC/evaluation structures. One case high school implemented 

related structures with control-external orientations, the other commitment-internal. It is these 

paired orientations as implemented that can significantly influence when and how teachers may 

use certain adaptive response strategies. 

 

The implications of these findings are discussed, including those that involve the 

application of structure-agency theory in education policy research, the understanding of how 

coherence may be crafted in routine, multiple policy implementation at the “street level,” and for 

the work of policy makers, practitioners, and researchers. 

 

 

 

Copyright by 
DIRK FREDERICK ZUSCHLAG 
2021 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dedicate this dissertation to my wife Sharon. 

Almost four decades ago, you chanced that “we’d make a great team.”  
And so we have, through all the turns in my vocational path, among 

all the vagaries of our wonderful life together, because of you. Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 

 

No endeavor like this is ever one person’s product. This work being no exception, I owe 

many thanks to many. So many, in fact, that I fear inadvertent omissions. Nevertheless, I want to 

try, poorly perhaps, to express my gratitude to some of those who accompanied me in process 

and contributed to its result through unwavering care, help and support. 

 

I first want to thank the educator participants of the pseudo-anonymous Woodford and 

Walker districts and high schools, the sine qua non of my research. These consummate 

professionals, and especially the focus teachers, gave thoughtfully, openly and generously of 

their time, experience and knowledge. My deep appreciation for your dedication to what you do 

only grew during the course of the study. 

 

In a similarly direct connection with this research, I owe much to my dissertation 

committee chair, Rebecca Jacobsen, and committee members, Ken Frank, Kristine Bowman, and 

Chris Torres. Scholars and educators and kind people all, I thank you for your consideration and 

encouragement, expectations and challenges. Further, beyond committee service, beyond 

impactful coursework, each committee member in their own way played a mentoring role in my 

ongoing professional development. Dr. Jacobsen, my advisor from day one, was constantly 

engaging me with the practicalities, the realities of research, writing, and the world of academia. 

I have had many good experiences and grown in many ways from my participation in Dr. 

Frank’s Balancing Voices project and with his research group, as well as from my work as Dean 

Bowman’s research assistant. And, even before joining my committee, Dr. Torres helped me 

think more clearly about my research interest and approach. Again, thanks to each and all. 

 

vi 

A number of other MSU faculty members and researchers have similarly helped me on 

the way. I would like to thank Dr. Michael Sedlak for encouraging me to enter the program, for 

leading the first year ED 928 proseminar, and for providing support throughout the program. 

Thank you, Dr. Sarah Reckhow, for introducing me to your work and methods, assisting me with 

my coursework in political science, and serving on my guidance committee. I am indebted to 

Drs. Nathan Burroughs and Jacqueline Gardner for bringing me into the substitute teacher 

research team and providing for my meaningful involvement in practically all phases of the 

project. I also continue to learn from Drs. John Lane and Kaitlin Torphy Knake, my far more 

knowledgeable and experienced colleagues in Dr. Frank’s Balancing Voices project. 

 

I would like to thank my fellow ed policy graduate students, who were to a person 

welcoming, considerate, and generous to one from a decidedly distant generation. I derived 

particular benefit from the practical counsel, example, and encouragement of graduate student 

leaders, such as Ben Creed, Rachel White, David Reid, Jason Burns, and Kim Jansen Evert. 

Many thanks. Thank you, too, to the students participating in Dr. Frank’s research group. 

 

Finally, I am exceedingly grateful to my wife, Sharon, to whom this work is dedicated. I 

am regularly astonished by, and so absurdly fortunate for, her ability with good cheer to provide 

for all facets of our well-being. I also thank family and friends for their understanding, interest, 

and encouragement. 

 

I am and will remain ever thankful both for those recognized above and for many others 

who, but for the finite nature of space and time, I would likewise acknowledge for furthering my 

work in education, culminating in this dissertation. Thank you all. 

 
 
 
 

vii 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
 
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………….…… viii 
    
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………….. ix 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ………….…………………………………..………...………. 1 
Research Problem ……………………………………………………………………………... 5 
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………. 8 
Dissertation Contribution …………………………………………………………………….. 10 
Dissertation Outline ………………………………………………………………………….. 13 

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ….………………………………………………..…... 15 
PLCs: A Commitment Oriented Teacher Quality Reform ………………………………...… 15 
Teacher Evaluation: A Control Oriented Teacher Quality Reform ……………………..…… 27 
PLC and Evaluation Implementation Interactions …………………………………………… 43 
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………… 53 

CHAPTER 3 POLICY CONTEXT AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …….....………… 55 
Michigan Teacher Evaluation and PLC Policy Context ………………………………...…… 55 
A Structure-Agency Approach to a Coherence Challenge and Resulting Research Questions 62 

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ……..……………………...… 73 
Multiple Explanatory Case Study Design ………………………………………………….… 73 
Sampling Strategy and Participants ………………………………………………………..… 75 
Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………….…… 86 
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………… 96 
Establishing Validity …………………………………………………………………...…… 104 

 
CHAPTER 5 TEACHERS USE AGENTIC STRATEGIES TO ADAPT RESPONSES TO  
THE RELATED STRUCTURAL DEMANDS of PLC AND EVALUATION …...………… 108 
   “Punctuated Compartmentalization” of Teacher Responses to PLC and Evaluation  
      Demands ………………………………………………………………………………..… 108 
   How Punctuation Happens: Interaction Opportunities and Adaptive Response Strategies ... 118 
   Why Teachers Punctuate Compartmentalization: Teacher Goals and Response Values …... 134 

CHAPTER 6 DESIGN AND GOAL ORIENTATIONS UNDERLYING EVALUATION/PLC 
STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIPS SHAPE TEACHER ADAPTIVE RESPONSES …….... 144 
   Relationships Between PLC and Evaluation Structures Rest on Administrative Design and  
       Goal Orientations ………………………………………………………………………… 144 
   Administrative Design and Goal Orientations Affect Teacher Punctuation Opportunities  
       and Related Use of Adaptive Response Strategies …………………….………………… 154 

 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION ………………………………………………,,,,,.…….……..… 162 

 

viii 

Administrative Structures, Teacher Agentic Responses, and Policy Coherence …………… 163 
Coherence Crafting Through Teacher Adaptive Response Strategies Within Related  
   Structural Demands …………………………………………………………………..…… 167 
Implications for Policymakers, Practitioners, and Researchers …………………………..… 171 
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………..…… 180 
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………..… 186 

APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………...… 188 
   APPENDIX A Focus Teacher/PLC Member Survey ………………………….…………… 189 
   APPENDIX B Focus Teacher/PLC Member First Interview Protocol …………….…….… 193 
   APPENDIX C Focus Teacher/PLC Member Second Interview Protocol ………….…….… 196 
   APPENDIX D Building Administrator (Principal, Assistant Principal) Interview Protocol . 198 
   APPENDIX E District Central Office Administrator Interview Protocol …………….….… 200 
   APPENDIX F Code Descriptions ……………………………………………….….….…… 202 

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………….………………….…… 206 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 3.1 Michigan Teacher Effectiveness Ratings ………………………………....………… 60 

Table 3.2 Idealized PLC Model and Teacher Evaluation System Characteristics ……...…...… 63 

Table 4.1 Comparison of Participating District Data …………………………….…….……… 82 

Table 4.2 Comparison of Participating High School Student Demographics ……….………… 83 

Table 4.3 Participating High School Teaching Staff Demographics …………………...……… 84 

Table 4.4 Participating Focus Teacher-PLC Member Information ……………….…………… 85 

Table 4.5 Participating Administrator Information …………………………….……………… 85 

Table 4.6 Woodford Focus Teacher Interviews ……………………….……………….……… 88 

Table 4.7 Walker Focus Teacher Interviews ……………………….……….………….……… 89 

Table 4.8 Woodford Administrator Interviews …………………….……….………….….…… 91 

Table 4.9 Walker Administrator Interviews …………………….………….………….….…… 91 

Table 4.10 Woodford ELA 11 PLC Observations …......………………….…….….….……… 94 

Table 4.11 Walker ELA 10 PLC Observations …………………………….………….….…… 94 

Table 4.12 Walker Math 10 PLC Observations ………………………….………………..…… 95 

Table 5.1 Teacher Adaptive Response Strategies ………………………….………….……… 131 

Table 6.1 Comparative Characteristics of PLC/Evaluation Structural Relationships ….…..… 154 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1 Teacher Responses to PLC and Evaluation Structures with Adaptive Responses  
                   Through Related Structures …………………………………..…………………… 70 
 
Figure 4.1 Embedded Multiple Case Study Units and Focus Teacher Participants ………....… 86 
 
Figure 5.1 Two Intersecting Dimensions of Proposed Typology ……………….……….…… 134 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xi 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Over more than three decades, an education reform wave has inundated K-12 public 

education at every level. The torrent of policies has been, and remains, characterized by top-

down state and federal mandates with shifting policy fields, targets and mechanisms. Even as 

they scramble to handle external demands, however, districts and schools still endeavor to 

implement internal improvement goals and strategies (Honig, and Hatch, 2004). The result, as 

Honig and Hatch wrote in 2004, is “a heightened state of policy incoherence” at the local level 

(p. 17 [references omitted]; see Fuhrman, 2003a, 2003b; Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and 

Bryk, 2001). Whether externally imposed or locally adopted, the initial implementation and 

eventual institutionalization of incoherent reforms increases the likelihood of policy and resource 

conflict, waste and dysfunction, as each reform undermines or impairs the others (Robinson, 

Bendikson, McNaughton, Wilson, and Zhu, 2017; Srinimsan and Archer, 2018; Wood, 2007). 

 
 
 
 

Multiple simultaneous school reform initiatives, each with their own 
accountabilities, can fragment the efforts of leaders and teachers, 
create stress, and increase cynicism without achieving the intended 
improvement (Hess, 1999). 

(Louis and Robinson, 2012, p. 633). Of course, the casualties of policy incoherence extend 

beyond school improvement efforts to, ultimately, student learning.  

One perennially fertile field for education reformers is teacher quality. Contemporary 

reform gospel, after all, holds that teachers make the single largest impact on student 

achievement (e.g., Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff, 2002). Unfortunately for teachers, the 

corollary often follows that teachers are principally responsible when student learning fails to 

improve. Among teacher quality policies, two of the more highly touted and widely adopted are 

state-mandated systems of high-stakes teacher performance evaluation and formalized models of 

 

1 

teacher collaborative teams, often known generally as professional learning communities (PLCs). 

These differ greatly in policy framing and design, implementation process and function. Still, the 

two in practice can overlap and interact through similarities in goal (e.g., teacher improvement 

through professional learning), subject matter (e.g., curriculum standards, instructional strategies, 

aligned assessments, student achievement data), and teacher activities and artifacts (e.g., lesson 

planning, assessment forms, student learning measurements). Many districts and schools have by 

now institutionalized and routinized PLCs and evaluation so that both are together re-enacted 

each school year.  

The demands of these two divergent teacher quality policies annually converge and 

interact on teachers, who must of necessity respond to both (Knapp, Bamburg, Ferguson, and 

Hill, 1998). Like the reform initiatives of concern to researchers such as Knapp, et al. (1998), 

PLC and evaluation cannot help but “separately and jointly alter, refocus, enhance, complicate, 

or otherwise affect” teachers’ work, working conditions, indeed their working lives (Knapp, et 

al., 1998, pp. 398-99). Convergent reform demands may disrupt, divert or constrain educator 

capacity, individual and collective, to improve practice through the development of teacher 

professionalism and professional accountability. In any given context, the result may not be for 

the good of teachers or students because 

 

…well-intentioned initiatives wind up creating conflict for practitioners 
and those they serve. Different initiatives may clash with one another, 
with the contexts in which they are implemented, or with the realities 
of how people respond to and adapt to change. 

 
(Srinivasan and Archer, 2018, p. 3). Furthermore, whereas district and school administrators may 

and should act to meet the coherence challenge resulting from policy convergence (Honig and 

Hatch, 2004), teachers, the ground-level policy targets directly responsible to their students and 

parents, must somehow navigate the policy interactions and effects. How teachers respond, and 

 

2 

why, holds important implications, not only for the iterative implementation and effects of 

policies such as PLC and evaluation, but also for larger school improvement efforts and 

outcomes.  

This embedded, explanatory multiple case study in two comprehensive public high 

schools applies a structure-agency theoretical perspective (Coburn, 2016; Donaldson and 

Woulfin, 2018; Rigby, Woulfin, and März, 2016) to focus on teacher agentic responses to dual 

teacher quality demands within distinct but related evaluation/grade-level PLC structures. More 

specifically, this research investigates how teachers adapt their response to the demand of one 

structure, evaluation or PLC, through their response to the other. It in addition shows how such 

teacher adaptive responses are shaped by any interaction between evaluation and PLC structures 

as administratively implemented. There is a pas de deux between teacher agentic responses that 

is influenced by, but that also influences, a pas de deux between structures. 

Overall, I find that the predominant, day-to-day state of teacher responses to have 

involved teachers compartmentalizing their respective responses to PLC and evaluation 

demands. However, these periods were punctuated at certain points during the evaluation process 

when structural interactions of demands opened opportunities for teachers to advantageously 

interact their responses such that the response to one demand could be re-purposed, leveraged, or 

otherwise adapted to serve the response to the other demand. Although teachers varied in the 

timing and form of the opportunities, and therefore in how they adapted and applied their 

responses, four distinct types of adaptive response strategies emerged from teachers’ agentic 

action within the related administrative structures. Teachers’ motivation to engage in 

“punctuated compartmentalization” stemmed from a combination of their main goals in 

responding to evaluation and PLC, and how they valued their engagement with each. These 

 

3 

considerations also help explain why it was an evaluation demand that almost always triggered 

teachers’ use of an adaptive response strategy. Once prompted, teachers took PLC work done to 

meet PLC demands while pursuing PLC goals and applied it in response to evaluation demands 

while pursuing evaluation goals. From a teacher’s perspective, adaptive response strategies 

available due to collective PLC work at once served to reduce the cost of evaluation compliance 

and to increase the value of PLC engagement. And in the bargain, teachers were in effect able to 

enhance the coherence of their responses.  

If teachers engage in a form of coherence crafting by how they adapt their agentic 

responses, administrators may facilitate or impede coherence by how they establish and 

implement the relationship between evaluation and PLC structures. In light of their larger policy 

attitudes, experiences and objectives, the administrations under study took differing approaches 

to their respective structural relationships based upon how each perceived the means to attain 

coherence while still achieving their preferred teacher quality improvement goals. Variation in 

structural relationships leads to variation in teacher response because certain structural 

characteristics can significantly affect the interactions that provide the opportunities for and 

teachers use of different adaptive response strategies.  

For impact on the scope and nature of teacher adaptive responses, the administratively 

determined and implemented structural relationships varied most significantly in their design and 

goal orientations. Thus, I find that the alternative structural relationships, first, were principally 

control oriented or commitment oriented (Rowan, 1990; see Darling-Hammond, Wise, and 

Pease, 1983 [rationalistic versus natural systems model]; Ingersoll, 2003 [bureaucratic versus 

professional model]). Second, the administrative goal animating the structural relationship was 

externally or internally goal oriented, where an external goal is one over and above, or extrinsic 

 

4 

to, the goals of PLC or evaluation per se, whereas an internal goal is one intrinsic to or bound up 

with the achievement of PLC or evaluation results. Whether external or internal, the 

PLC/evaluation relationship is a structural means to an end. However, in the external goal 

orientation case, the end lies outside the intended purposes of both evaluation and PLC 

themselves; in the opposite case, the end lies inside their intended purposes—i.e., it is an aim of 

PLC and/or evaluation to begin with. In one of the cases here, it was the district that 

implemented a primarily control oriented, external goal oriented structural relationship, while in 

the other case, it was the high school that implemented a primarily commitment oriented, internal 

goal oriented structural relationship. Yet, even in the second case, the district during the time of 

this study began to exercise more control for external purposes. 

Research Problem 

We know from largely independent bodies of research that teacher evaluation systems 

and PLC models widely diverge in theory and practice. Whereas, teacher evaluation systems 

produce individual summative ratings for employment decisions, perhaps ideally along with 

formative feedback (e.g., Papay, 2012), PLCs aim to foster individual and collective capacity 

through collaborative professional learning, perhaps ideally also fostering professional 

accountability (e.g., Kruse, et al., 1995). Evaluation relies on personal accountability and 

bureaucratic control for its intended effects, PLCs on collective learning and professional 

commitment. They seem to stand at opposite poles along a number of education policy 

dimensions, for example, from governance centralization versus decentralization to bureaucratic 

versus professional accountability, to individual versus collective responsibility, learning or 

capacity (see Adams and Kirst, 1999; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton, 2010; 

Elmore, Ableman, Even, Kenyon, and Marshall, 2004; Ingersoll, 2003; Ingersoll and Collins, 

 

5 

2017). PLC models, in short, exemplify the paradigmatic commitment oriented design, 

performance evaluation systems the paradigmatic control oriented design (Rowan, 1990; see 

Darling-Hammond, et al., 1983; Ingersoll, 2003).  

To adopt both in the same district or school absent attention to how the policies converge 

on teachers in implementation seems like a recipe for incoherence. Two decades ago, Knapp, et 

al. (1998, p. 398) identified the real-world problem that educators in countless districts and 

schools have come to share: 

 

The fact of multiple reforms begs questions about their inter- 
 
actions with one another and about their joint influence on the work- 
ing circumstances of professional educators and ultimately on the 
quality of learning opportunities available to children. There is no 
guarantee that, in combination, the reform initiatives reinforce each 
other. It is just as possible that multiple reforms, separately conceived, 
might get in each other’s way or simply overload the system … so that 
little, if anything, is accomplished. 

 
(Emphasis supplied; see also, Srinivasan and Archer, 2018). Since all kinds of districts/schools, 

facing all kinds of pressures and challenges, are subject to multiple reforms, the potential for 

deleterious policy interactions, joint influences, and uncertain effects in implementation will be 

realized in otherwise disparate district, school and educator contexts (see, e.g., Louis and 

Robinson, 2012; Marsh, et al., 2017). Further, it is not just district and school administration that 

must confront the resulting coherence challenges (Honig and Hatch, 2004). Rather, perforce the 

organization of schooling, “[i]t remains to the frontline professional to sort this all out …” 

(Knapp, et al., 1998, p. 409). Unless mitigated by effective, ongoing “crafting” in which teachers 

have a large stake and to which teachers could contribute, incoherence bodes ill for teacher 

quality improvements and for reform—that is, school and student—success.  

PLC models and teacher evaluation systems are widely implemented reforms of general 

applicability. How they were “separately conceived” and diffused historically can be another 

 

6 

problematic factor in implementation. While promising improvement across school contexts, 

each reform has taken an independent route through development, adoption, and implementation. 

Many districts began adopting a PLC model in response to school level accountability mandates 

like those culminating in 2001 with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) during the second 

Bush administration. The successor Obama administration used its NCLB waiver authority and 

Race to the Top program (RTTT) to induce many states to enact teacher evaluation systems 

(Lavigne, 2014; Pogodzinski, Umpstead and Witt, 2015; Reinhorn, Johnson, and Simon, 2017). 

In many districts, then, an unprecedented external system of teacher evaluation was layered onto 

an existing internal system of PLCs (Jones, Bettini, and Brownwell, 2016; Woodward and 

Mazur, 2015). A similar layering, just in reverse time sequence, occurred in those districts that 

adopted a PLC model after the advent of state-mandated evaluation. 

The consequences of policy convergence in either sequence have been similar. For as the 

two policies converge on schools, their disparate demands interact to affect teacher responses 

(Knapp, et al., 1998; Rigby, et al., 2016). After all, teachers’ responses to one must come in the 

context of their responses to the other, particularly because both involve some of the same 

educational elements, activities and artifacts. Thus, a teacher’s response to a personalized 

accountability demand can affect the same teacher’s response to a demand for collective 

improvement work, and vice versa (Harris and Herrington, 2015; see Jones, et al., 2016; 

Woodland and Mazur, 2015). Teacher responses together redound on the policy structures to 

affect their ongoing implementation (Burch, 2007; Coburn, 2016). Following initial 

implementation, moreover, teachers (and administrators) re-enact both teacher evaluations and 

PLCs every school year, even as both interact and evolve in the process. The dynamic of 

 

7 

iterative, routinized implementation over time leads to the institutionalization of both policies 

(Coburn, 2016; see Burch, 2007). 

The challenge of attaining, let along maintaining, policy coherence does not end with 

institutionalization of course. To the contrary, it persists indefinitely, not only because the 

institutionalized structures themselves continue to change, not only because there are similarities 

or overlaps in some elements available for use in response, but fundamentally because teachers 

each school year must engage anew with the related structures of PLC and evaluation in order to 

respond to their particular demands. Those demands specify goals, activities, tasks and products 

that may or may not aid efforts to achieve coherence in teacher responses and effects. Moreover, 

PLC and evaluation demands, whether separate or interacting, form structures in the work 

environment that teachers must navigate, while yet pursuing the primary occupational objective:  

successful teaching and learning. How teachers understand and act on the demand structures and 

their responsive agency within them, as well as how teachers respond and why, present empirical 

issues this dissertation addresses.  

Research Questions 

Each school year, districts and schools implement evaluation and PLC through 

established structures. Although the structures are not entirely static—they are related, and 

modifications are introduced—teachers are subject to the concurrent demands of both at various 

points over the school year. This research aims to understand and explain how teachers’ agentic 

responses to these dual demands might affect each other, and thereby affect how teacher deal 

with both evaluation and PLC in practice. Relatedly, this research examines how the 

characteristics of the structures of evaluation and PLC can upon interaction affect the nature of 

 

8 

and scope for teachers to perceive opportunities and to take action to advantageously adapt their 

responses for their own ends. 

Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions: 

1.  How, if at all, do teachers adapt their agentic responses to per- 
formance evaluation and professional learning community de- 
mands as they respond to the structures of both? 

 
2.  How, if at all, does the relationship between structures of perfor- 

mance evaluation and professional learning community shape 
teachers’ adaptive responses? 

 

These research questions underline the significance of two subjects of this study: teachers’ 

“agentic responses” to the demands of PLC and evaluation, and the “structures” of PLC and 

evaluation. Chapter 3 will discuss structure-agency theory in more detail, but for definitional 

purposes now, “agency” concerns a person’s capacity to act (Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018); as 

Colburn (2016, p. 466, quoting Scott, 2008, p. 78), explains: “Agency can be understood as ‘an 

actor’s ability to have some effect on the social world—altering rules, relational ties, or 

distribution of resources.’” Coburn (2016, p. 466) also adopts Scott’s (2008, p. 78) definition of 

social structure as “‘the patterning of social activities and relations through time and across space 

… incorporating rules, relations and resources reproduced over time.’” Structures support, direct 

and guide organizational activities, specifying how organizations function and how actors 

perform their roles (Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018; Rigby, et al., 2016; Sewell, 1992). 

Taking a structure-agency theoretical approach to frame the research questions and guide 

the analysis of the relationship of two teacher agentic responses to two distinct demands within 

two related structures may be novel with this dissertation. 

 

 

 

9 

Dissertation Contribution 

This research is an empirical investigation of how teachers adapt their otherwise 

independently elicited responses in order to navigate the demands of these two disparate in 

principle, if interacting in practice, teacher quality policies. Through the identification and 

explanation of both elements of this teacher two-step—two agentic responses to two structural 

demands—this dissertation makes the following contributions. 

First, this dissertation contributes to a body of research showing the utility and versatility 

of a structure-agency conceptual framework (see Coburn, 2016; Rigby, et al., 2016; e.g., 

Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018). It is practically a truism that actors charged with policy 

implementation will in that very process change the policy as designed. Here, a structure-agency 

lens has been turned on an ongoing coherence challenge: two very different teacher quality 

improvement structures are re-enacted together with the same policy targets year upon year. The 

convergence of similar ends, differing means, and shared periods of reproduction results in a 

complex of inter-relationships among two agentic responses, which can influence each other, and 

two structures, which can interact with each other. The resulting analysis and findings provide 

insights into and suggest explanations for the patterns and variations among adaptive responses 

as shaped by related structures. This dissertation thus represents a fruitful, knowledge building 

extension of the structure-agency approach to a new, if common, education policy context. 

Second, this dissertation suggests that a broader, more elaborated conception of the 

participants who engage in and mechanisms constituting “crafting coherence” may better guide 

local policymakers and practitioners in their efforts to achieve coherence among current and 

future teacher quality policies. The results here confirm Honig and Hatch (2008) in two main 

respects: policy incoherence poses an ongoing challenge to school improvement efforts; and 

 

10 

conversely, policy coherence must be constantly made and re-made through a dynamic process 

of adjusting responses to internal and external demands. Moreover, each administration in the 

cases here intentionally undertook to implement their evaluation and PLC structures in relation 

to each other; and although their measures differed, they were both nonetheless encompassed 

within Honig and Hatch’s (2008) conceptualization (see also DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 

2005). At the same time, however, by showing that teachers in PLCs can and do participate in 

their own form of coherence crafting, this dissertation extends to the bottom or “street level” our 

understanding of who crafts coherence and how. Teacher crafting in this study involves 

dynamically adapting responses through the application of distinct strategies developed within 

the related structures of evaluation and PLC. And while the implementation of related structural, 

demands influence teacher responses; attaining coherence all the way down still depends upon 

the exercise of teacher agency (see Russell and Bray, 2013; Stosich, 2018).  

Finally, even as this dissertation will begin to fill a gap in the literature, it has 

implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. As previously suggested, despite 

researcher interest in discrete teacher quality reforms, especially when each is new, newly 

popular, or initially implemented, little literature explicitly investigates the responses of teachers, 

alone or in formalized groups, to the sustained convergence of two performance improvement 

and accountability demands quite like evaluation and PLC. Nor does much extant research 

concern either why teachers respond to certain aspects of policy convergence, or how teachers 

participate in coherence crafting in the process of response. This dissertation starts to bridge the 

largely separate research silos by adding to our knowledge of the interaction of policy demands 

and the relationship of policy target responses in the routinized implementation of policy 

prescriptions. Further work building on this research might sufficiently deepen and broaden our 

 

11 

understanding of teacher responses to related policy demands to inform multiple policy design 

implementation, institutionalization and evaluation.   

This research helps explain how teacher agentic response to each “new new thing” in 

teacher quality reform, regardless of source or intention, will from the bottom up impact the 

coherence crafting efforts among the existing constellation of policies at the school and district 

levels. One implication for policymakers and practitioners is therefore this: even apart from a 

policy’s theory of action and fidelity of execution, one teacher quality policy can alter the 

functioning and results of another. Recursively driven by the responses of the policy targets 

themselves, as shaped by local design and goal orientations, such downstream effects should be 

anticipated and accounted for in the design and implementation of convergent reform proposals.  

This and subsequent research therefore have the potential to inform the consideration of any new 

or modified policy that would likely interact with existing systems and influence teacher 

responses to multiple demands. 

From the perspective of the policy targets that are this study’s primary subjects, this 

research illuminates why teachers neither need nor should navigate multiple teacher quality 

structures via rigidly routinized, discrete responses of mainly resistance or acceptance. Instead, 

teachers can and should with intention leverage their individual and collective agency to expand 

the scope and range of effective interacting responses. Especially if pursued in win-win concert 

with administration, teachers might then promote the utility of PLC work and evaluation, while 

also affirming teacher professionalism and professional accountability in the service of their own 

professional growth. 

 

 

 

12 

Dissertation Outline 

The chapters that follow review the relevant literature, describe the evaluation/PLC 

policy context and structure-agency conceptual framework, set forth the qualitative research 

design and methodology, explain the findings as to the first and second research questions, and 

discuss those findings and their implications.  

The first section of Chapter 2 describes the research on the nature and characteristics of 

PLCs, a commitment oriented teacher quality policy, including how PLC demands and teacher 

responses influence PLC functioning and results. The second section takes the same approach to 

elucidating the research on teacher performance evaluation as a control oriented teacher quality 

policy. Finally, a third section reviews the limited research bearing directly on the interaction 

effects of one policy on the other.  

Chapter 3 first provides the policy context for this study. It describes the enactment and 

terms of Michigan’s teacher evaluation system, as well as the nature and adoption of PLC 

models in many Michigan districts. The second section of Chapter 3 elaborates on why the 

PLC/evaluation policy context poses a challenge of coherence to educators subject to both each 

school year. Given this challenge, the second section proceeds to present the components and 

relationships of the structure-agency approach that has been applied to address this dissertation’s 

research questions.  

Chapter 4 in its first section delineates the multiple case study design that this research 

employs, together with its rationale. The research design discussion is followed in succeeding 

sections by explanations of this study’s sampling strategy and participants, data collection and 

analysis, and procedures undertaken to establish validity.  

 

13 

Chapters 5 and 6 present the evidence and findings that answer, respectively, the first and 

second research questions. Chapter 5 focuses on the teacher agency component of the structure-

agency approach. Following a description of the overall evaluation/PLC relationship as one 

characterized by “punctuated compartmentalization” of demands and responses, the chapter goes 

on to demonstrate when, how and why teachers adapt their responses to the demands of 

evaluation based on their PLC work directed toward achieving particular PLC objectives. 

Chapter 5 therefore identifies and describes four adaptive response strategies teachers may use 

(and did use) to their advantage in dealing with related evaluation and PLC demands. It also 

compares the strategies along two intersecting dimensions. 

Chapter 6 concerns the structural side of the conceptual approach. The two districts/ 

schools implemented related PLC and evaluation systems with differing design and goal 

orientations. One used a control orientation as a means to an external goal, while the other’s 

commitment orientation aimed at an internal goal. This chapter shows how these alternative 

paired orientations in implementation influenced teachers’ use of various adaptive response 

strategies. 

Finally, Chapter 7 concerns the broader significance and contributions of this research. 

This study, first, enhances our knowledge and understanding of the structure-agency approach; 

and next, how coherence may be crafted and by whom. This includes types of teacher agentic 

responses driving implementation within related or interacting structures that vary in their 

orientations, and the implications of teachers’ participation in such crafting. The chapter next 

explores implications for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. It wraps up with a 

discussion of the limitations of this research and a brief section in conclusion. 

 
 

14 

 

CHAPTER 2 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

 

The two teacher quality reforms this study concerns originated at different policymaking 

levels, at different times, in different places, and in different policymaking and implementation 

contexts. Broadly speaking, PLC and evaluation policies are opposed in design elements—the 

former representing a strongly commitment oriented model, the latter a strongly control oriented 

one (Rowan, 1990; see Darling-Hammond, et al., 1983; Ingersoll, 2003). Not surprisingly, then, 

the development and spread of PLC models and teacher evaluation systems spawned substantial 

but largely independent bodies of research. Nonetheless, we know that many districts and 

schools across the United States have established and annually enact both.  

This chapter has four sections. The first two concern those separate bodies of PLC and 

evaluation research. These sections undertake to describe and synthesize that portion of each 

body of research that might make coherence challenging when both reforms interact or converge 

on schools and teachers. The discussion for each therefore focuses on policy theories of action 

and goals, together with, in implementation, each reform’s demands and influences, and teacher 

responses and effects. The third section reviews the far more limited research, theoretical and 

empirical, that involves substantial interactions between evaluation systems and PLCs, together 

with the resulting variation in school and teacher responses. This chapter’s concluding section 

summarizes the overall nature of the research and identifies a gap this research aims to begin 

filling. 

PLC: A Commitment Oriented Teacher Quality Reform 

Although the development of PLCs seems many-sourced, a body of professional 

community research becomes discernable beginning in the 1980s (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, 

Wallace, and Thomas, 2006). A movement for PLCs (under a variety of monikers) gained 

 

15 

momentum in the 1990s alongside school-level accountability and state standards reforms. It 

grew and spread in the 2000s with the passage and implementation of NCLB. From the first to 

the second decade of the new millennium, many districts and schools around the nation adopted 

formalized teacher professional community or collaborative team models (Blankenship and 

Ruona, 2007; Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, and Simons, 2012; Charner-Laird, Ng, 

Johnson, Kraft, Papay, and Reinhorn, 2016; Feger and Arruda, 2008; Levine, 2010). Today, 

despite a plethora of names and configurations (Levine, 2010; Murphy and Torre, 2014; Stoll, et 

al., 2006), PLC models tend toward a common theory of action and similar design features 

inherited from earlier practitioner experience and academic research (Brouwer, et al., 2012; 

Hord, 1997; Kruse, Louis and Bryk, 1995; Levine, 2010; Murphy and Torre, 2014; Stoll, et al., 

2006).  

PLCs are clearly a commitment model of school improvement (Rowan, 1990). “At the 

heart of the [PLC] concept … is the notion of community. The focus is not just on individual 

teachers’ professional learning but on professional learning within a community context—a 

community of learners, and the notion of collective learning” (Stoll, et al., 2006, p. 225). The 

description Hord (1997, p. 6) gives likewise emphasizes collective learning, but it points to 

action and an objective. She says that, in a professional community of learners,                

… the teachers in a school and its administrators continuously seek 
and share learning, and act on their learning. The goal of their actions 
is to enhance their effectiveness as professionals for the students’ ben- 
efit; … 

 
(See also Stoll, et al. 2006, p. 223; Murphy and Torre, 2014, p. 101). So constituted, PLCs are 

designed to leverage teacher knowledge, skill and experience in a collaborative setting to foster 

individual and collective learning. Such professional learning will in turn build teacher and 

school capacity, improve teaching and learning, and satisfy internal and external accountability 

 

16 

demands. “Because of their inherent learning potential, communities of practice offer a pathway 

to improved teacher quality and educational change” (Printy, 2008, p. 190). 

Research has specified the attributes of effective, well-functioning PLCs (e.g., literature 

reviews, Feger and Arruda, 2008; Hord, 1997; Murphy and Torre, 2014; Stoll, et al., 2006). The 

pioneering work of Kruse, Louis, and Bryk (1995) proposed a framework for analyzing school-

based professional community according to five characteristics: shared norms and values, 

reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice, collective focus on student learning, and 

collaboration (see also Louis, Kruse, and Bryk, 1995; Louis, Kruse, and Associates, 1995; Louis, 

Marks and Kruse, 1996; Louis and Marks, 1998). Stoll et al. (2006) later derived five mutually 

reinforcing characteristics from a review of the literature: shared values and vision, collective 

responsibility, reflective professional inquiry, collaboration, and group as well as individual 

learning. Based on her decade of research focusing creating successful PLCs in schools, Talbert 

(2010) described four core features based on how PLCs (1) establish expectations and norms for 

collaboration; (2) focus PLC work on improving all students’ achievement; (3) create knowledge 

resources for PLCs; and (4) engender mutual accountability for success. Finally, Murphy and 

Torre (2014) surveyed the literature for what they called the core elements of communities of 

professional practice. As the foundation of their generalized PLC model, Murphy and Torre 

(2014) argued for six defining elements: shared vision, collaboration, ownership, shared 

leadership, shared accountability, and trust. Crucially, Murphy and Torre (2014) emphasized, 

PLCs sharing these elements develop and practice collective responsibility and accountability. 

Murphy and Torre (2014) in their literature review explicitly conclude that scholars’ 

findings of defining PLC attributes imply effective professional accountability as a hallmark of 

true PLCs (see also Talbert, 2010). The research does demonstrate that the attitudes, norms and 

 

17 

practices constituting professional accountability can emerge through teachers’ engagement in 

PLCs (Johnson, Reinhorn, and Simon, 2018; Louis, Kruse, and Bryk 1995; Louis, et al., 1996; 

McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001; Murphy and Torre, 2014; Talbert and McLaughlin, 1994).  

The literature on accountability in education policy has long recognized and described the 

characteristics of professional accountability in terms that closely correspond to the PLC 

characteristics discussed above. Thirty years ago, for example, Darling-Hammond (1989, p. 67) 

summarized three principles of professional accountability comprising (1) the authority to 

practice based on specialized knowledge applied to students’ unique needs, (2) a pledge of first 

concern for students, and (3) the assumption of “collective responsibility for the definition, 

transmittal, and enforcement of professional standards of practice and ethics” (1989, p. 67; see 

Darling-Hammond, 1990; Adams and Kirst, 1999; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1999; 

Firestone and Shipps, 2005; Leithwood and Earl, 2000; Mayer, 2005; Mehta, 2011; O’Day, 

2008; Sykes, 1999). Teacher engagement in professional community can lead to professional 

accountability when teachers share an accurate understanding of the most appropriate 

educational means and ends for their students. Further, teachers must hold each other to current 

standards of expert knowledge, skill and judgment to properly enact the agreed means to achieve 

the desired ends (Adams and Kirst, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1989; Darling-Hammond and 

Ascher, 1991; Firestone and Shipps, 2005; Mehta, 2013; McDermott, 2011). Put somewhat 

differently, teachers’ collective responsibility for learning is an essential element of professional 

culture with accountability (Lee and Smith, 1996; see O’Day, 2002, 2008). Mϕller (2008, p. 40 

[author’s emphasis]) seems to directly channel the PLC literature when he concisely sums up the 

point: 

 

 

… [P]rofessional accountability [is] where a person’s commitment 
to a community of professionals makes him/her perceive a duty to 

18 

adhere to the standards of the profession. … Professional account- 
ability implies that teachers acquire and apply knowledge and skills 
needed for successful practice. In addition, it involves the norms of 
putting the needs of students at the centre of their work, collaborating 
and sharing of knowledge, and a commitment to the improvement of 
practice. 
 

In addition to specifying the determinants of PLC performance, the literature has 

investigated factors that support (if present) or hinder (if absent) the cultivation and growth of 

PLCs (see Brouwer, et al., 2012). The analytical framework proposed by Kruse, et al. (1995), for 

example, included five structural conditions (e.g., time to meet, teacher empowerment and 

school autonomy) and five social/human resources (e.g., openness to improvement, trust and 

respect, supportive leadership) that support professional community at the school level. 

Similarly, Stoll, et al. (2006) from the author’s own research added three contextual factors to 

those PLC characteristics identified in the literature (listed above): mutual trust, respect and 

support among staff members; inclusive membership extending beyond teachers and school 

leaders; and seeking sources of learning and ideas outside the school (Stoll, et al., 2006).  

Research in line with Kruse, et al. (1995) and Stoll, et al. (2006) has likewise extended 

and refined the organizational conditions and supports that promote effective PLC functioning 

and sustainability in a variety of forms. Such factors span a range from structural, such as formal 

opportunities, quality resources, ongoing professional learning and participatory leadership 

structures to support authentic collaboration, to more cultural components, such as shared goals, 

an inquiry focus, and broad-based trust, to committed and effective district and school leadership 

(DuFour and Fullan, 2013; Louis, Dretzke, and Wahlstrom, 2010; McLaughlin and Talbert, 

2001; Murphy and Torre, 2014; Supovitz, 2002; Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2015; Tschannen-

Moran, 2009; Wood, 2007). Additional research has focused on those resources in the broader 

context that can advance PLC work. Researchers have examined the nature and extent of 

 

19 

relational trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2001; Miesner, Blair, Packard, Velazquez, Macgregor, and 

Grodsky, 2019) and collective trust (Forsythe, Adams, and Hoy, 2011), as well as features of the 

school environment such as the presence and substance of collective professional norms 

(Murphy and Torre, 2014; Kraft and Papay, 2014), an organizational learning culture (Louis and 

Lee, 2016) or culture of learning (Tichnor-Wagner, Harrison and Cohen-Vogel, 2016), and 

professional capital (Fullan and Hargreaves, 2015).  

 

It is plain from the multiplicity of multifarious sets of attributes, conditions and supports 

that successful PLCs impose high demands on educators and schools (DuFour and Fullan, 2013; 

Hargreaves, 2007; Murphy and Torre, 2014). This fact, together with challenges in theoretical 

conceptualization and empirical operationalization for empirical research, may help explain the 

suggestive but limited recent evidence linking PLCs to improvements in teacher practice and 

student achievement (Akiba and Liang, 2014; Lomoa, Hofman, and Bosker, 2010; Ronfeldt, 

Farmer, McQueen, and Grission, 2015; Vescio, Ross, and Adams, 2008). PLCs’ high practitioner 

demands might likewise help explain what researchers (let alone practitioners) have long 

recognized: schools vary widely in how well actual PLCs develop and function to fulfill their 

promise (Charner-Laird, Ng, Johnson, Kraft, Papay, and Reinhorn, 2016; Hargreaves, 2007; 

Hargreaves and Dawe, 1990; Johnson, Reinhorn, and Simon, 2018; Louis, Marks and Kruse, 

1996; McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993; Ronfeldt, et al., 2015; Supovitz, 2002; Woodland and 

Mazur, 2015). Much of the literature seeking to understand the variation in PLC performance 

focuses on two factors relevant to the instant study. One, the role of school leadership in 

establishing, operating and supervising PLCs, concerns the demand side of implementation, 

whereas the other, teachers’ motivation and capacity to engage in PLCs, concerns the response 

side. 

 

20 

School level leadership can act to improve an array of teacher and organizational 

capacities (Bryk, et al., 2010), including shared or distributed leadership (Louis, et al., 2010), 

relational trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2009), shared responsibility 

within internal accountability (Elmore, 2005), and a focus on school goals with active support of 

instructional improvement (Louis, et al., 2010; Supovitz, et al., 2010). In addition to its role in 

developing PLC supports like those previously identified (see, generally, Murphy and Torre, 

2014), school leadership, especially principals, can more directly impact PLC performance 

(Buttram and Farley-Ripple, 2016; Charner-Laird, Ng, Johnson, Kraft, Papay, and Reinhorn, 

2016; DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Feger and Arruda, 2008; Johnson, et al., 2018; Murphy and 

Torre, 2014; Printy, 2008; Wood, 2007; Young, 2006).  

Some of this literature has tried to disentangle somewhat more specifically those 

behaviors by which formal school leaders influence teachers in PLCs. For example, Buttram and 

Farley-Ripple (2016) in their study of principals implementing a new state-mandate for “PLC 

time” in schools found that the participants’ understanding of the mandate and strategies for its 

implementation strongly influenced what teachers did in PLCs and how well they did it. 

Charner-Laird, et al. (2016) examined the performance of teacher teams in six high-poverty 

schools from the teacher-participants point of view. The researchers found substantial variation 

among schools in how well PLCs functioned, with an overall determination that the PLCs in 

three schools were a “good fit” for teacher and school learning and three a “bad fit.” The authors 

detailed their findings for each school, but the highest level factors they focused on consisted of 

how successful the principals were in “defining the purpose of teams, setting the environments in 

which they worked, and supporting their work along the way,” concluding that “it appears that 

these formal school leaders [principals] will continue to be crucial partners in determining how 

 

21 

and how well teams work in schools” (Charner-Laird, 2016, p. 33) Finally, Printy (2008) studied 

how secondary principals and department chairs exerted influence on the composition and 

quality of teacher participation in PLCs, for good or ill. She suggested that successful leaders 

engaged in several activities, from creating the conditions for effective interactions for learning 

to using guided activities to structure meetings to modeling sensemaking as teachers learn to 

scaffold their knowledge. The most critical influence seemed to stem from the expectations 

school leaders established for teacher participation (see also Datnow, 2011; Johnson, et al., 2018; 

Young, 2006).  

How school leaders design, implement, and oversee the overarching approach to and 

structures of PLCs can strongly shape teacher response to PLC demands and so the outcomes of 

PLC work (Wood, 2007). Thirty years ago, Hargreaves and Dawe (1990, p. 230) contrasted  

 
 
 
 
 
 

…how far some current efforts toward developing norms of 
collegiality among teachers create critical and collaborative 
teacher cultures which develop curriculum and pedagogical 
reform from within the profession, on the one hand, or forms 
of contrived collegiality, which are administratively designed 
to smooth the path of externally imposed innovation, on the other. 

(Emphasis in original; see also Datnow, 2011; Hargreaves, 1994). Writing twenty years later, 

Talbert (2010, p. 555) in a “sobering assessment of the challenges facing the PLC movement” 

updated and elaborated the problem for formalized systems of PLCs in her comparison of two 

strategies for their implementation.  

Talbert (2010) designates one strategy “bureaucratic,” the other “professional,” arguing 

that “[t]he strategies a school district uses to create PLCs make a great difference in outcomes” 

(Talbert, 2010, p. 560). The bureaucratic approach rests on principles of top-down control, where 

schools implement PLCs through such measures as requiring teachers to collaborate, establishing 

leadership roles, and making PLCs accountable up the command chain. The professional 

 

22 

approach is much more commitment oriented, relying on processes like developing a common 

vision, increasing capacities for leaders to support change and for educators to address gaps in 

student achievement, and creating a set of inter-related PLC resources. Critically, according to 

Talbert, teacher responses to bureaucratic demands usually involve compliance, resistance and 

anxiety, while professional demands tend toward enthusiasm, cooperation and wait-and-see 

collaboration. Still, the two “typically exist and compete in school system [sic] where leaders 

embrace different views of how to create PLCs” (Talbert, 2010, p. 561; see Charner-Laird, 

2016). Since PLCs can only sustainably succeed when they work change in a school’s 

professional culture, and not when adopted as another school improvement “program,” 

Hargreaves (2007), Datnow (2011), and DuFour and Fullan (2013) effectively join Talbert 

(2010) in urging the professional strategy, even as they use different verbal formulations of it. 

On the other side of PLC implementation, teachers within intra-school and particular 

PLC contexts may lack sufficient motivation or capacity to respond effectively. First of all, there 

are likely persistent norms that may be inimical to those upon which authentic PLCs depend. 

Strong norms of teacher autonomy and equality, managerial imperative, and civility may at best 

hinder the development of professional learning and development of professional accountability 

(Murphy and Torre, 2014; see also DuFour, 2004; Little, 1982, 1990; Lortie, 2002 [1975]). 

These norms, moreover, can combine with poor teacher discourse into So-called “collaboration 

light” (DuFour, et al., 2004; see Wood, 2007)—unfocused, superficial, negative—or worse (see, 

e.g., Datnow, 2011)—can lead to unproductive at best and toxic at worse PLC dysfunction that 

ends up reinforcing teachers’ pre-existing practices (see Horn and Little, 2010; Talbert, 2010; 

Woodland and Mazur, 2015). 

 

23 

Still, to the extent a critical mass of teachers in PLCs is able to develop opposing norms and 

engage in productive discourse such as those discussed at the beginning of this section (e.g., 

Kruse, et al., 1995), then deprivatized practice and authentic collaboration may emerge, perhaps 

bolstered by effective systems of support (Louis and Lee, 2016; Johnson, et al., 2018). In the 

movement from one state to another, whether achieved or not, seemingly unavoidable conflict 

may or may not be successfully navigated, with effects differing among teachers and schools 

(Achinstein, 2002; Johnson, 2003; see Datnow, 2011).  

The first challenge to the productive functioning of PLCs points to a second: substantial 

variation in teacher capacities to engage quality collaboration (Charner-Laird, 2016; Rongeldt, et 

al., 2015; Supovitz, 2002; Wood, 2007). One research approach to discourse capacity question 

has been to identify those factors positively influencing the work of PLCs overall. For example, 

several studies showed that, beyond PLC supports like sufficient meeting time and active 

administrative support, the use of trained facilitators contributes to PLC success (Andrews-

Larson, Wilson, and Larbi-Cherif, 2017; Bolhuis, Schildkamp, and Voogt, 2016; Reinhorn, et al., 

2018). Other researchers have looked to the purpose of PLC collaboration. Popp and Goldman 

(2016) compared two sets of grade-level PLC meetings—one teacher collaboration focused on 

assessment systems, the other on instructional activities—to determine in which there were more 

participant moves associated with knowledge building discourse. The authors found that the 

former, assessment systems discourse was superior, and more generally suggested that “meeting 

foci play a role in supporting (or not supporting) knowledge building in teacher PLCs” (Popp 

and Goldman, 2016, p. 356). Similarly, in their literature review, Vescio, et al., (2008, p. 89) 

concluded that a key commonality among the cases of successful PLCs was “collaboration with a 

clear and persistent focus on data about student learning” (see also Ronfeldt, et al., 2015; Young, 

 

24 

2006). The literature also includes support for the significance of collaborative foci such as to 

change teachers’ instructional practices (Supovitz, 2002) and to serve a worthwhile purpose in 

support of the school’s mission (Reinhorn, et al., 2018). 

Another approach of scholarly attention concerned with teacher capacity for professional 

learning through collaboration investigates variations in how teachers actually interact in PLCs. 

Typically based on the fine-grained analysis of “teacher talk,” this research works from the 

bottom up to understand how teacher discourse produces learning opportunities and resources 

that support improvements in teacher practice (Horn, Garner, Kane, Brasel, 2017; Horn and 

Little, 2010; Little, 2002a, 2003; Richmond and Manokore, 2010). Horn and Little (2010, p. 183) 

studied how the conversational routines in two teacher work groups in the same school 

“enhanced or limited opportunities for the in-depth examination of problems of practice and 

hence shaped opportunities for teacher learning.” Although the two seemed alike in many ways, 

sharing a commitment to improving teacher practice and a school context, “these groups were 

found to differ in the opportunities for learning they constructed through micro-level discourse 

routines they employed … and the meso-level participation routines they used…” (Horn and 

Little, 2010, p. 211). Along with each group’s orientation and contextual resources, it was the 

qualitative nature of the discourse that produced the potential for learning. In more recent work, 

Horn and colleagues studied mathematics workgroups across sixteen middle schools that were 

selected as exemplars of teacher collaboration (Horn, et al., 2017; see also Horn, Kane, and 

Garner, 2018). Seeking “to uncover how different kinds of collegial conversations shape 

teachers’ professional learning opportunities” (Horn, et al., 2017, 41), the researchers developed 

and tested a taxonomy of teacher team meetings based on the extent and nature of the teacher 

learning each kind constituted. Ranging from least effective to most effective as generative of 

 

25 

opportunities for authentic learning, the six kinds were (1) conflicting goals, (2) pacing, (3) 

logistics, (4) tips and tricks, (5) collective interpretation separate from future work, and (6) 

collective interpretation linked to future work. This research shows how important authentic, 

quality collaboration, consisting largely of teacher discourse, is to both the promise and 

challenge of establishing and sustaining effective PLCs. 

Little (2003) in a sense captures much about the potential for interactions in PLC to 

improve learning and practice. After summarizing her examination of “the intellectual, social, 

and material resources of professional community, particularly as those are constituted through 

representations of classroom practice in out-of-classroom [PLC] interactions” (Little, 2003, p. 

938; note omitted), she concludes that the resulting findings 

 

 

 

 

…complicate some of the existing typologies of teacher community  
by showing how ongoing interactions both open up and close off  
opportunities for teacher learning and consideration of practice— 
in the same groups and sometimes the same moments. Even within 
these groups that would be reasonably considered collaborative, in- 
novative, and committed to improving practice, teacher learning  
seems both enabled and constrained by the ways teachers go about 
their work. The forces of tradition and lure of innovation seem sim- 
ultaneously and complexly at play in teachers’ everyday talk.  

 
(Little, 2003, p. 941; emphasis supplied; see Wood, 2007). 

High-functioning PLCs are hard to actualize and sustain (e.g., DuFour and Fullan, 2013; 

Hargreaves, 2007; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001). Nevertheless, PLCs, perhaps in modified or 

extended forms, still hold promise for advancing teacher quality in schools (Bryk, Gomez, 

Grunow, and LeMahieu, 2016; Quintero, 2017; Woodland and Mazur, 2015). Indeed, Bryk, et al. 

(2016) re-envisions teacher collaborative teams as Networked Improvement Communities 

(NICs) run according to six improvement principles (Bryk, et al., 2016). PLCs can at once build 

the individual and collective professional learning and capacity (Newmann, et al., 1997; 

 

26 

Charner-Laird, 2016) that promotes professional capital (Fullen and Hargreaves, 2015) and 

internal accountability (Elmore, et al., 2004) for student learning and school improvement 

(McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001; Ronfeldt, et al., 2015; Louis and Marks, 1998). 

Teacher Evaluation: A Control Oriented Teacher Quality Reform 

Following on years of policy ferment about the inadequacies of local district teacher 

evaluation processes (e.g., Donaldson, 2009; Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, and Keeling, 2009), 

the RTTT and NCLB waiver policies of the Obama Administration strongly prompted states to 

adopt high-stakes, teacher evaluation as a major teacher quality reform (Donaldson, 2009; Kraft 

and Gilmour, 2016; Lavigne, 2014; McGuinn, 2012; see National Council on Teacher Quality, 

2017; Reinhold and Johnson, 2015). Most state-mandated evaluation systems as enacted seek the 

achievement of two goals: a summative purpose lying in teacher accountability and a formative 

purpose lying in teacher development (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Papay, 2012; Kraft and 

Gilmour, 2015; Reinhold and Johnson, 2015; see, e.g., Dee and Wyckoff, 2015 [District of 

Columbia]; Pogodzinski, Umpstead,and Witt, 2015 [Michgian]; Reinhorn, Johnson, and Simon, 

2017 [Massachusetts]).  

As to the accountability or summative purpose, “the core of teacher evaluation is what it 

is, a system of performance management that is scaffolded on hierarchical authority and control 

over labor [references omitted]” (Murphy, Hallinger, and Heck, 2013). This purpose relies on a 

bureaucratic accountability design for its theory of action (Adams and Kirst, 1999; Darling-

Hammond, Wise, and Pease, 1983; Maslow and Kelley, 2012). Taking a classic control approach 

(Rowan, 1990), the system primarily aims to hold teachers individually accountable for their 

teaching quality and their students’ learning by using multiple measures of effectiveness. Its key 

components are evaluators’ ratings of standards-based classroom observations and the 

 

27 

determination of student achievement growth from standardized assessment scores (Goe, Bell, 

and Little, 2008; Woodland and Mazur, 2015; Papay, 2012; Whitehurst, Chingos, and Lindquist, 

2014). Assuming that the components together produce a valid and reliable effectiveness rating 

for each teacher, teachers can be ranked for purposes of high-stakes personnel decisions on 

teacher retention (lay-off, non-renewal, discharge), promotion or additional compensation, and 

the award of tenure or other job security benefits (Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy, 2014; Papay, 

2012).  

The potentially punitive consequences (or, sometimes, rewards) attached to evaluation 

effectiveness ratings are intended to provide powerful incentives for teachers to achieve high 

effectiveness or exit the profession (Firestone, 2014; Harris and Harrington, 2015; Papay, 2012;). 

The exiting of ineffective teachers, whether voluntarily or not (Dee and Wycoff, 2015; Loeb, 

Miller, and Wyckoff, 2015), should over time increase the overall level of teacher quality in a 

school or district (Papay, 2012; Hallinger, et al., 2014; Lavigne, 2014). In short, as Harris and 

Herrington (2015, p. 72) put it: 

 

The main underlying theory of these policies is that teacher account- 
ability will motivate teachers to work harder and smarter and help at- 
tract and retain only those who are successful. 
 

The professional development or formative purpose of teacher evaluation principally 

relies on the system’s provision for individualized feedback on classroom observations. The 

student growth component comes too late in the process and in any event does not indicate how 

the teacher can or should improve their performance (Goe, et al., 2009; Whitehurst, et al., 2014). 

Kraft and Gilmour (2016, p. 715) locate the theory of action for formative evaluation in “cycles 

of observation, reflection, dialogue and feedback, and goal setting [that] can provide teachers 

 

28 

with new ideas as well as frequent and relevant feedback to support their professional growth” 

(see also Darling-Hammond, 2013; Papay, 2012; Reinhorn, et al., 2017). 

 

It is not difficult to notice that the “[g]oals of development and accountability in teacher 

evaluation often stand in tension, even though policies governing evaluation typically call for 

achieving both” (Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015, p. 3; see also Darling-Hammond, 2013; Papay 

2012; Ray Taylor and Associates, 2017). Hence, even before practitioners and researchers could 

address the usual challenges attending implementation of such a complex, resource-heavy, game-

changing policy, its very design was highly problematic. Further, despite the fact that formative 

use of evaluation held greater promise for improvements in teaching and learning (Papay, 2012; 

Murphy, et al., 2013), Papay (2012, p. 124) pointed out that “[f]or the most part, policy debates 

regarding evaluation systems have revolved around the first of these purposes, focusing on 

evaluations as measurement instruments to assess teacher performance and hold teachers 

accountable” (see also Darling-Hammong, 2013; Woodland and Mazur, 2015). This fact has 

shaped the implementation research from both local policy demand and response perspectives. 

The implementation of teacher evaluation systems has proved extremely challenging, due 

not merely to divergent goals, but also due to the high demands placed on and the responses 

required of local districts and schools (e.g., Dee and Wyckoff, 2015; Marsh, Bush-Mecenas, 

Strunk, Lincove, and Huguet, 2017; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015). Effective implementation 

with fidelity meant that district and school personnel had or could acquire necessary time, 

capabilities, and other personal and organizational resources (see, e.g., Maslow and Kelley, 

2012; Woodland and Mazur, 2015). As Kraft and Gilmour (2016, p. 715) succinctly stated with 

reference to one evaluation goal: “A key assumption of [the formative evaluation] theory of 

action is that teachers are both willing and able to improve their practice by actively engaging in 

 

29 

the evaluation process.” The formative process further assumes that administrator/evaluators are 

willing and able to formulate, provide, and follow-up on prompt, actionable feedback to teacher/ 

evaluatees (Goe, et al., 2009; Kraft and Gilmour, 2016; Maslow and Kelley, 2012; Woodland 

and Mazur, 2015). Summative metrics involve largely isolated, perhaps unrepresentative, snap 

shots of teacher performance. They not only depend on a valid and reliable observation tool and 

student achievement data fairly linked to individual teachers, but also, again, on the competence 

of administrators to understand sufficiently and apply fairly the observation tool, student 

achievement measures, and supporting technology. Teachers must be able to accurately 

comprehend their evaluators’ demands in order to effectively respond to them given their 

individualized contexts (Goe, et al., 2009; Hallinger, et al., 2014; Maslow and Kelley, 2012; 

Murphy, et al., 2013; Papay, 2012; Woodland and Mazur, 2015).  

 

Given the overall aims and principal components of evaluation demands/responses in 

schools, at least for purposes of this dissertation, the implementation literature on the evaluation 

demand side had examined the behaviors of school leaders, especially principals, in their 

immediate contexts. Principals can for the entire teaching staffs frame and prioritize evaluation, 

communicating how they approach and value it (Donaldson and Woulfin, 2017; Reinhorn et al., 

2017). They directly engage in the evaluation process with “their” particular teachers and within 

varying organizational constraints and affordances of “their” school.  Principals plainly exercise 

meaningful, even substantial, agency when they enact evaluation (Donaldson and Woulfin, 2017; 

Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015), not the least in how they address the challenge 

of implementing the development and accountability goals (e.g., Reinhorn, et al., 2017; Tuytens 

and Devos, 2010). The interplay of principal agency and contextual factors can largely determine 

the extent to which evaluations are conducted with fidelity and thereby might attain policy goals 

 

30 

(Donaldson and Mavrogordato, 2018; Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018; Kraft and Gilmour, 2016, 

2017; Reinhold and Johnson, 2015; Reinhold, et al., 2017). As always with the implementation 

of an education policy, especially when externally imposed, leadership matters (see Honig and 

Hatch, 2004; see also, e.g., Marsh, et al., 2017; Tuytens and Devos, 2010). 

Accordingly, to explain empirically the principal’s role in evaluation implementation, 

some researchers examine those cognitive processes that principals employ to know and decide 

how to implement state-mandated evaluation systems. Reinhorn, et al. (2017) studied six high-

performing, high poverty schools, where they found that the “principals’ views, priorities and 

approach to evaluation” had the greatest influence on their teachers’ understanding that the 

purpose and effect of evaluation was desirable individual improvement (Reinhorn, et al., 2017, p. 

401; see also Tuytens and Devos, 2010). Looking to sensemaking theory, Reinhorn, et al. (2017, 

p. 401) summarized the sources of the principals’ implementation behaviors by stating that they: 

drew upon their knowledge and skills about good teaching and a commit- 
ment to use strategies that would support teachers’ development (individ- 
ual cog nition). They also had a clear understanding of what their school’s 
particular policy context encouraged and allowed, and the capitalized on 
the opportunities it provided (situated cognition). Furthermore, they recog- 
nized the state’s policy stimuli, which highlighted the importance of teach- 
ers’ continuous development, while not ignoring the importance of dismiss- 
ing weak teachers. This focus, conveyed by the state’s [evaluation document- 
tation] and additional training and supports, aligned with these principals’ 
professional priorities.  

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

Studies somewhat more narrowly focused on particular participant groups or evaluative 

contexts have identified various considerations that inform principals’ personal efforts to 

implement evaluation in their particular contexts. For example, Rigby’s (2014) research interest 

involved the messages six first year principals received about the enactment of the same 

evaluation system components. The participating principals were chosen in part because they had 

attended a distinct principal preparation programs. Taking a sensemaking approach akin to 

 

31 

Reinhold, et al. (2017), Rigby found that, with respect to their roles as instructional leaders 

conducting evaluations, the principals were most influenced by the messages they connected to 

that originated from their informal collegial networks of other participants in their respective 

programs. This influence was key even as compared to the school context and previous 

experience. Although the primary target of Reinhold and Johnson (2015) concerned variation in 

how principals used evaluation for their own school-level purposes (discussed below), they also 

considered the potential impact of participant attributes, such as experience, professional 

learning, understanding and attitude with respect to principals’ enactment of evaluation.  

Donaldson and Mavrogordato (2018) studied 17 principals and assistant principals in ten 

schools to learn how they evaluated low-performing teachers to move toward improvement for 

retention or dismissal from employment. The researchers found that the principals’ personal 

“framing of teacher performance and teacher ratings, and their efforts to improve instruction 

reveal the cognitive, relational and organizational aspects of working with low-performing 

teachers” (Danaldson and Mavrogordato, 2018, p. 591). For example, in considering and 

rationalizing which approach to take with a particular low-performing teacher, principals 

cognitively applied the categories “deserving” versus “undeserving.” But once working with a 

low-performing teacher, relational aspects came to the fore because principals wanted to build 

trust through demonstrations of benevolence. And when a decision point for removal of a low-

performing teacher arose, it was organizational aspects (e.g., union relations) that most 

influenced principals’ behavior. In all these contexts and aspects, principal shaped the evaluation 

system in its implementation. 

Finally among this group of studies, Woulfin, et al., (2016) used frame analysis to 

investigate how district leaders communicated strategically about evaluation policy to educators 

 

32 

under their supervision. Despite the tendency of the district’s frames to stress evaluation’s 

accountability aspects and to advance solutions for school-level implementation issues, the 

district did not act to enforce its frames or hold school leaders accountable for carrying out 

particular practices. It instead only regulated the state-enforced procedures. The district left 

principals to decide how to implement the teacher development components. The predictable 

result was a compliance mind-set, plus incoherent implementation activities among schools. 

Another set of studies seeks to explain how principals alter evaluation demands in their 

implementation by identifying patterns in principals’ goal-oriented actions during the process of 

interacting with teachers within practical constraints. To take a prominent example, Kraft and 

Gilmour (2016) reported decidedly mixed results for principals’ capacity to effectively use 

evaluation for formative purposes. On the one hand, the researchers found that evaluation system 

provided improved materials and positively shifted teacher roles in and the culture around 

evaluation. On the other, they identified four “challenges” to evaluators that had serious 

“consequences” for capacity of the system to improve teachers. First of all, it turned out that 

principals did not agree about the purpose of evaluation, which meant that they used evaluation 

differently. Second, the expanded evaluation responsibilities of principals led to brief, infrequent 

discussions of feedback. Third, because principals inevitably had to give feedback outside their 

expertise, feedback focused on purely pedagogical practices and strategies. Lastly, principals 

lacked sufficient training; principal-teacher discussions tended to concern summative ratings and 

positive talk, rather than feedback for improvement (see also Kimball, 2002; Reinhorn and 

Johnson, 2015 [main challenges to evaluation for teacher development found to be evaluator 

time and expertise]; Rigby, Larbi-Cherif, Rosenquist, Sharpe, Cobb, P., and Smith, 2017 [most 

instructional feedback concerned content-neutral classroom practices instead of content-specific 

 

33 

pedagogical practices]; Sporte, Stevens, Healey, Jiang, and Hart, 2013 [evaluation system placed 

high demands on administrator time and capacity]).  

The work of Kraft and Gilmour (2016) is consistent with a larger body of research 

suggesting that “researchers have found that evaluation is not performed in optimal conditions 

and is often not effective” (Maslow and Kelley, 2012, p. 602). Maslow and Kelley (2012, pp. 

602-603) proceeded to catalogue many of the deficiencies in how evaluators common enact their 

roles: 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Supervisor competence (or lack thereof), inadequate time for obseva- 
tion and feedback, limited teacher/administrator understanding and 
acceptance of the evaluation tool, and the application of narrow con- 
ceptions of teaching impede the ability of evaluators to provide mean- 
ingful … feedback to enhance teaching practice [references omitted].  
Lack of district-level support in defining criteria by which to evaluate 
teachers, untrained evaluators, and unclear expectations continue to 
pervade the field as well [references omitted]. 
 
Research also has shown that classroom observations of teach- 
ers are often biased and subject to evaluator preferences and “vision”  
of what effective practice should look like [reference omitted]. In  
addition, an inherent conflict exists between the role of evaluator as 
instructional leader and as staff supervisor [reference omitted]. And 
research has shown that principals lack content-specific knowledge, 
resulting in evaluation feedback that focuses on general behaviors,  
such as delivery, rather than on content-specific pedagogy. Thus, e- 
valuation may present an inaccurate view of teacher performance, …  
[references omitted]. 

 
(See also Murphy, et al., 2013; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Woodland and Mazur, 2015).   

 

In a second important study, Kraft and Gilmour (2017) turned to the summative or 

accountability purpose of evaluation, seeking to explain their demonstration that most principals 

issue very, very few low effectiveness or underperformance ratings to their teachers. The authors 

found their explanation in “realities and complex incentives evaluators must navigate when 

assessing teachers” (Kraft and Gilmour, 2017, p. 240). Principals’ “coping and rationalizing 

behaviors included the accommodating severe time constraints, crediting teachers’ upside 

 

34 

potential and positive motivation, avoiding personal discomfort, and minimizing difficulties in 

removing and replacing teachers” (Kraft and Gilmour, 2017, p. 240). The authors noted that the 

principals’ behaviors are of a piece with those Lipsky (2010 [1980]) attributed to “street level 

bureaucrats” (see also Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977); and they concluded that while policy may 

set the general terms of the evaluation system, “it is the aggregation of individual decisions by 

evaluators navigating complex realities in schools that determine” the distribution of 

effectiveness ratings (Kraft and Gilmour, 2017, p. 242). 

Although their research motivation differed, Donaldson and Woulfin (2018) also wanted 

to know how principals used their discretion in evaluation, not only to affect outcomes but more 

tellingly to fashion evaluation processes based on their judgment of what would be the better 

course for themselves and teachers in the circumstance. Relying on structure-agency theory, they 

collected and analyzed a large data set of “principals’ discretionary activities” from 37 principals 

and 7 assistant principals from 37 schools in 9 districts then piloting a state-legislated teacher 

evaluation system. They first showed the ample opportunities for principal discretion among the 

defined structures of system. The law specified, for example, the number of teacher student 

learning objectives (SLOs) and classroom observations, but left open the content of the SLOs 

and the particular classes/lessons observed. Donaldson and Woulfin (2018) then established the 

substantial breadth of the participants’ agency in the day-to-day implementation of evaluation in 

their schools and with their teachers, particularly with respect to those evaluation structures with 

which they were most comfortable.  

More specifically, they construct a typology of six kinds of principal actions during their 

conduct of evaluations. The most common, “tinkering,” involved making “minor adaptations or 

adjustments to rules or practices”—for example, an extension in the window for conducting 

 

35 

required midyear conferences (Donaldson and Wolfin, 2018, p. 543). Other strategies included 

(in descending order of frequency) “reducing,” “framing,” “hybridizing,” “double dipping,” and 

“gaming.” The authors also explore the principals’ “espoused rationale” for their adaptations of 

the systems’ requirements—from clarifying or simplifying components to enhancing or 

improving them, increasing buy-in or feasibility, and promoting learning, and reducing anxiety. 

Principals were trying in the main both to manage the evaluation demands on them and to 

advance evaluation’s developmental goals. Principal agency in institutionalized evaluation seems 

a fact; whether it helps or hurts the achievement of policy goals in the longer run, and how 

teachers engage and respond year, after year all remain subjects of future research.  

Reinhorn and Johnson (2015) approached the question of how principals’ implementation 

of evaluation reflected differing attitudes and purposes through a multiple case study of six 

schools of varying grade levels in a single urban district serving a high poverty population. 

Collecting substantial data from administrators and teachers, the researcher found across all 

schools that, while teachers accepted, even embraced, both purposes of evaluation, they very 

much sought high quality feedback for professional growth and school improvement. However, 

given the attitudes and activities of the school administrators, Reinhorn and Johnson (2015) 

found that principals actually implemented evaluation to serve quite widely divergent purposes 

(see also Marsh, et al., 2017; compare Reinhorn, et al., 2017). In four of the six schools, 

participants described “the evaluation process largely as a ritualized, bureaucratic activity that 

prompted procedural compliance, but failed to support either increased accountability or 

professional growth” (Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015, p. 5). The principals in the remaining two 

schools 

 
 

invested heavily in evaluation in order to improve the quality of teach- 
ing in their school. However, even these two principals viewed the pur- 

 

36 

 
 
 
 
 

pose of evaluation quite differently. One relied on evaluation to identi- 
fy and document the shortcomings of teachers who did not meet stan- 
dards and then to dismiss those who failed to improve. The other used 
evaluation to achieve both purposes—holding teachers accountable and 
supporting them for improvement—which teachers widely praised. 

In the four schools that engaged in “perfunctory implementation,” most considered 

evaluation “an empty requirement with little or no benefit for their learning.” The process 

focused on procedure; it was a “routine that teachers endured, but did not value” (Reinhorn and 

Johnson, 2015, pp. 18-19). In the school where the principal evaluated all teachers, but only to 

remove the weakest, the other teachers expressed relief at the departure of underperforming 

peers, though another result was a “demoralizing climate of fear.” Focusing on accountability for 

the few, school administration paid little attention to improvement for the many. For most, again, 

evaluation was largely a “routine, empty, bureaucratic process” (Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015, 

pp. 21-22). Only in a single school did the principal use evaluation to support teacher growth. He 

held strict accountability expectations, which unsettled some teachers, but the principal 

competently dedicated himself to improving teacher quality, despite challenges of time and 

incomplete content knowledge. 

The literature on how and why school leaders conduct evaluations as they do affirms that 

“[p]rincipals are at the center of implementing these policies” (Donaldson and Mavrogordato, 

2018, p. 597). Perhaps given the frontline role principals play in directly executing evaluation 

demands, it is not surprising that teachers’ perceptions of evaluation may to a large extent turn 

on principals’—but not just principals’—behaviors in implementation (Jiang, Sporte, and 

Luppescu, 2015; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Reinhorn, et al., 2017; Sporte, et al., 2013; 

Tuytens and Devos, 2010). Jiang, et al. (2015), for one, found that teacher perceptions of 

professional community were, like school leadership, positively, significantly related to 

 

37 

perceptions of the evaluation system (see also Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn, et al., 2017 [both 

discussed in the next section of this chapter]). 

Speaking more generally, teacher perceptions of evaluation can influence the kinds of 

responses with which this dissertation is concerned—namely, how teachers engage with the 

evaluation system, how their participation contributes to evaluative activities (Jiang, et al., 2015; 

Reid, 2020; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Reinhorn, et al., 2017). The research establishes, for 

example, that teachers support both the accountability and development goals of evaluation, the 

former to the extent it accurately identifies underperforming teachers, the latter because the 

observation process, properly conducted, can result in teacher growth (Donaldson, 2012; Jiang, 

et al., 2015; Moran, 2017; Sporte, et al., 2013). Teachers unsurprisingly find more value in 

evaluation as a formative process, rather than for its summative outcomes (Kimball, 2002; 

Peterson and Comeaux, 1990). They seem to believe that properly applied observation tools 

align with authentic aspects of their practice and can lead to productive conversations about it 

(Jiang, et al., 2015; Kimball, 2002; Peterson and Comeaux, 1990). Teachers are particularly 

concerned about the competence, preparation and fairness of their evaluators (Donaldson, 2012; 

Kimball, 2002; Reid, 2020; Sporte, et al., 2013). Reinhorn and Johnson (2015, p. 26) sum up the 

prior points, when they write that their teacher-participants agreed that 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

… evaluation has the potential to improve the quality of instruction and, 
ultimately, student learning. Further, they endorsed the use of evalua- 
tions to increase accountability. But they also hoped that evaluation 
would support their professional growth. Across the sample, teachers 
longed for opportunities to receive detailed, useful feedback, coupled 
with support for improving their practice. They criticized or dismiss- 
ed the evaluation process when it lacked those elements. 

 

As the last sentence quoted above suggests, there is some evidence that evaluation in 

practice may operate to discourage or diminish the quality of teacher engagement or response. 

 

38 

Some teachers have expressed concerns over the accuracy, fairness, and usefulness of the 

observation and student growth components (Donaldson, 2012; Hewitt, 2015; Jiang, et al., 2015; 

Kimball, 2002; Moran, 2017; Sporte, et al., 2013). Another nuance in an assessment of teacher 

responses is the evidence that teachers’ individual characteristics and school contexts—for 

example, teaching experience, grade level, assignment, prior effectiveness ratings, instructional 

philosophy—influenced their perceptions and so presumably participatory responses (Jiang, et 

al., 2015; Kimball, 2002; Lane, 2020; Peterson and Comeaux, 1990). Nevertheless, together with 

the implementation demand literature, the sparser response literature suggests that in the 

evaluation implementation dance, for better or worse, teachers do well to follow their principal’s 

lead (see Lane, 2020; Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Reinhorn, et al., 2017).  

Three recent studies reflect differing perspectives on the principal-teacher dance 

metaphor (Reid, 2020; Lane, 2020, and Marsh, et al., 2017). Reid’s (2020) did not limit his study 

of teachers’ perceptions of how principals use a new evaluation system. He took a further step of 

showing how those perceptions affected teacher involvement in the evaluation process. Reid 

(2020, p. 132) points out that: 

 
 
 

… a teacher’s perception that his or her principal is utilizing evaluation 
in ways that may help them improve their practice may help teachers 
buy-in to the evaluation process. This buy-in has the potential to result 
in a more meaningful and useful evaluation experience for principals and 
teachers, as well potentially leading to better implementation efforts de- 
sired by policymakers and school districts. 

Reid’s (2020) analysis of data from nine teachers and nine principals in traditional and charter 

elementary schools in Michigan resulted in two findings regarding teachers’ perceptions: first, 

their principals’ evaluative activities supported the teachers’ professional growth, mainly by 

providing balanced and actionable feedback; and second, their principals acted with transparency 

 

39 

and communicated effectively during the evaluation process. These perceptions together led to 

teachers responding with active engagement in the evaluation process (Reid, 2020).  

 

Lane’s (2020) argument is nearly orthogonal to Reid’s (2020). The former applied a 

frame analysis approach to understanding how teachers responded to evaluation demands based 

on their beliefs about their evaluators and the purpose of evaluation. He found that teachers in 

the schools he studied collectively shared an understanding that focused on the summative goal 

of evaluation. Teachers’ accountability-focus conception entailed a “single elaborated 

perspective” that informed and guided their responses to evaluation demands: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The primary purpose of evaluation is to earn a high score relative to one’s 
peers and in so doing secure one’s occupational future. In order to perform 
well on evaluation, teaches need to determine a principal’s preferences and 
then project themselves in ways that align with these preferences. Finally, 
principal preferences are likely to be only loosely connected to the observa- 
tion protocol, if connected at all, and may actually conflict with a teacher’s 
own sense of best practices. 

(Lane, 2020, p. 23; completely italicized emphasis omitted and underscored emphasis supplied).   

Probably rooted in teachers’ pre-evaluation policy experiences, Lane (2020, p. 19) further 

found that this perspective motivated teachers’ efforts in the evaluation process given their self-

understanding of their personal position, irrespective of “differences in principal leadership, local 

labor market conditions, and teachers’ own beliefs, values, experiences (i.e., perceptions), and 

relative standing among colleagues.” These findings provided the foundation for Lane’s (2020) 

further explanations for the effects of evaluation on teacher collegiality and practice.  

Lane (2020) pointed out that his approach and analysis differs from that of Donaldson 

and Woulfin, 2018 and Reinhorn, et al., 2017 (discussed above) because the principals in his 

study did not impose their evaluation frames on their teachers. Instead, the teachers developed a 

common evaluation perspective independent of their principals’ attitudes, beliefs, or practices, 

 

40 

and they then responded to evaluation accordingly. Still, to the extent that teachers’ evaluation 

responses stemmed from their understanding of the preferences their principals had 

communicated (as well as their individualized situations), the teachers were following or 

aligning with their principals’ leads, at least in significant part. Lane (2020) in addition suggests 

that, contra Marsh, et al., 2017, “rather than being collectively determined at the school level by 

a set of organizational conditions, [teacher] responses to evaluation emerged from a common 

group perspective and one’s understanding of her specific situation” (Lane, 2020, pp. 38-39).  

As Lane discusses, Marsh, et al. (2017) did focus their investigation on organizational 

factors and conditions around the implementation of a revamped teacher evaluation system in 

eight case study schools under various governance arrangements in New Orleans. The 

researchers did conclude that leadership quality and collaborative structures were the most 

strongly related to the variation in school-level responses to evaluation demands (discussed in 

the next section of this chapter). For present purposes, with respect to evaluation responses of 

teachers and administrators within schools, it is significant that Marsh, et al. (2017) found three 

non-exclusive patterns of response, which they designated “reflective,” “distortive” and 

“compliant.” Importantly, most of the case schools showed a combination of response types 

based on teacher and administrator response data the researchers describe.  

To begin, “[w]hat distinguished distortive schools was that teachers reported changing 

their behavior during evaluations to enhance their results” (Marsh, et al., 2017, p. 553). The 

distortive behaviors included “putting on a show” for observations and gaming levels or 

selecting students to meet student learning targets. As the name suggests, educators in compliant 

cases “appeared to go through the motions, but did not reflect or act to improve practice” (Marsh, 

et al., 2017, p, 554). Their responses did not actively “resist, game or adjust their practice to 

 

41 

improve their perceived effectiveness or preclude valid measurement” (Marsh, et al., 2017, p. 

554). Notwithstanding relatively minor variations in individual responses, most educators did not 

respond strongly in either direction to the evaluation components; most reported continuing with 

their prior practice. A minority of three schools responded in a primarily reflective way. 

“Educators in these schools reported in engaging in meaningful reflection and improvement 

efforts, and clearly perceived the evaluation data as a valid measure of teaching and useful for 

improvement” (Marsh, et al., 2017, p. 556). For example, they committed to the validity and 

utility of the evaluation process, which was treated as an integral component of their professional 

practice. Observations were rigorous, but support was strong too, with quality feedback and 

coaching typically provided. In all the case schools, the agentic implementation of evaluation 

demands and responses resulted in identifiable patterns of interaction that effected the policy 

design structures and goals.   

Overall, it was and remains unclear the extent to which performance evaluation systems 

in implementation—especially since they have become increasingly routinized in practice—can 

meaningfully achieve or consistently sustain either summative accountability or formative 

development goals (Lavigne, 2014; see also, e.g., Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn and Johnson, 

2015), let alone whether they “are capable of reconciling the marriage of teacher development 

and dismissal in one single system” (Kraft and Gilmour, 2016, p. 740; see also, e.g., Murphy, et 

al., 2013; Reinhold and Johnson, 2015). As Papay (2012) suggested it would, the summative 

goal in implementation seems to predominate over the formative (Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; 

Woulfin, et al., 2016; see, e.g., Cameron-Standerford, et al., 2017; Ray Taylor and Associates, 

2017). The common objective of teachers and administrators often extends little beyond formal 

compliance (Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Woulfin, et al., 2016; Woodland and Mazur, 2015), 

 

42 

notwithstanding the system’s substantial opportunity costs (Hallinger, et al., 2014; Murphy, et 

al., 2013). 

Even the evidence on the implementation of each goal considered separately is mixed. 

With respect to the summative purpose, some research showed increases in low-performing 

teacher exits with the initial implementation of reforms (e.g., Dee and Wyckoff, 2015; Loeb, et 

al., 2015). It nonetheless seems that a large majority of teachers in nominally “high stakes” 

systems receive satisfactory effectiveness ratings (Kraft and Gilmour, 2017; Woodland and 

Mazur, 2015). Nor do evaluations systems well serve their development purpose, even when 

school leaders attempt to fulfill it; many studies document the many ways formative demands 

and responses fall short (Maslow and Kelley, 2012; Kraft and Gilmour, 2016; Woodland and 

Mazur, 2015; see also, e.g., Rowan, Schilling, Spain, Bhandari, Berger, and Graves, 2013; 

Serdiouk, Bopp, and Cherasaro, 2017). Still, it is not impossible to implement an effective 

formative-oriented evaluation system, but formative system elements must be coherently 

integrated with other organizational supports or cultural conditions for teacher learning, which is 

challenging and costly for most districts and schools (Marsh, et al. 2017; Maslow and Kelley, 

2012; Reinhorn, et al., 2017; Taylor and Tyler, 2012). Opportunities for success with formative 

evaluation, in sum, may depend on positive interactions in the implementation of otherwise 

separate reforms. 

PLC and Evaluation Implementation Interactions 

The literature on the processes and results of interactions between PLC and teacher 

evaluation in implementation is sparce and diffuse. A handful of studies argues, largely on 

theoretical grounds, that anticipated conflicts between the two reforms in implementation could 

impede the achievement of either’s goals. Two in this first group go on to propose ways to 

 

43 

mitigate or manage the conflicts. A larger second group comprises empirical investigations of 

evaluation implementation in contexts where the work or elements of professional community or 

professional culture contributed to or suffered from implementation results. Finally, some studies 

of school level accountability measures find effects on the goals, work or results of professional 

community. This arguably analogous research could prove relevant because the identified 

mechanisms and effects might apply, a fortiori, to the more recent implementation of more 

intense individual evaluation systems. 

Darling-Hammond, et al. (1983) shows in a comprehensive literature review what well 

know even mor than three and one-half decades ago: teacher evaluation systems can adversely 

affect elements of school and professional culture. Decades later Darling-Hammond (2013, p. 3) 

makes a stronger argument in the introduction to her book-length teacher evaluation model:   

…that we not adopt an individualistic, competitive approach to 
ranking and sorting teachers that undermines the growth of learn- 
ing communities which will, at the end of the day, do more to sup- 
port student achievement than dozens of the most elaborate rank- 
ing schemes ever could. 

Although neither Forsythe, et al. (2011) and Valli, Croninger, and Walters (2007) studied PLCs 

directly, they both provide examples of how such negative interactions might occur. The former 

argues that non-evaluative, “supervisory practices” such as shared inquiry, reflective dialogue, 

collaboration and professional learning, build the collective trust necessary to improve teaching 

and learning. This collective teacher development approach would only suffer with the adoption 

an individual performance evaluation system (Forsythe, et al., 2011; Hallinger, et al., 2014). The 

latter advises wariness toward polices that purport to isolate the contributions of individual 

teachers to student learning. Even if measurement issues could be resolved, Valli, et al. (2007) 

maintain that such accountability demands could harm school efforts to encourage teacher 

 

44 

collaboration and more productively distribute resources. They reason that teachers would have 

scant incentive to spend time together, share resources, or engage in professional activities for 

other teachers’ development. 

Two more ambitious studies first identify the same sort of challenge implementing 

formalized PLCs and performance evaluation together—potential incoherence to the detriment of 

how both are supposed to improve teacher quality—before arguing for their preferred solution 

through integrating the systems (Jones, Bettini, and Brownell, 2016; Woodland and Mazur, 

2015). Jones, et al. (2016) locates the source of the potential problem in the incompatibility of 

individual and organizational interests activated by differing accountability mechanisms. They 

then look to how other occupational fields (e.g., surgery, the military) with the same sort of 

individual/team accountability tensions address the problem via the explicit evaluation of 

individual and team collaboration. The authors discuss and propose further research on three 

constructs by which to determine team performance could be applied to teaching. They conclude 

that “if the two strands of policy reforms are to coexist, we urge researchers and practitioners 

alike to take seriously the need to make space in the evaluation process for the assessment of 

teamwork” (Jones, et al., 2016, p. 8; see also Kimball, 2002).  

Woodland and Mazur (2015) compare the “promises and pitfalls” of PLCs with those of 

teacher evaluation. Not surprisingly, the implementation of both these “hug” and “hammer” 

approaches, which compete for time, attention and resources, results in an incoherence harmful 

to teacher professional learning and quality. The authors elaborate solution envisions a wholly 

new “tiered system of job-embedded professional development (JEPD) that leverages the 

strengths of both PLCs and educator evaluation as they are currently implemented, minimizes 

their respective weaknesses, and treats them as a coherent approach” (Woodland and Mazur, 

 

45 

2015, p. 7; emphasis deleted). In the plan’s first tier all teachers are members of teams engaged 

in JEPD and individually subject of administrative observation and feedback. The succeeding 

tiers mainly ramp up the feedback and other supports for the fewer teachers whose performance 

continues to lag. Eventually, teachers evaluated as ineffective after the third tier could be 

dismissed. The system in this way attempts to achieve both the individual and collective 

professional development to which PLCs aspire, as well as to accomplish the summative and 

formative ends of evaluation. 

Last among those researchers who analyze potential PLC/evaluation interactions in more 

theoretical terms, Johnson (2015) seeks to demonstrate that the use of value-added measures 

(VAMs) to identify, reward or dismiss teachers could decrease school capacity for teacher 

professional community and internal accountability by, as her title has it, “Reinforcing the Walls 

of the Egg-Crate School.” Beyond depressing teacher satisfaction via the creation of an 

uncongenial work environment, Johnson argues that VAMs would likely discourage teachers’ 

shared responsibility for students and constrain the benefits of standards-based evaluation. Based 

on social capital theory, Johnson wants to show that the use of VAMs to determine personal 

accountability would short-circuit the process by which school social capital boosts individual 

human capital. Rather than relying on VAMs to reward or sanction a few teachers, Johnson 

(2015, p. 122) concludes that schools would likely gain more through investments in “promoting 

collaboration, learning, and professional accountability,” perhaps including a peer assistance and 

review process for teacher evaluations. 

A small portion of the evaluation literature empirically investigates how the 

implementation of teacher evaluation systems in particular contexts interacts with collaborative 

structures and opportunities akin to PLC. In one sub-set of studies, such interactions sometimes 

 

46 

directly yield adverse effects on collaboration. For example, Hewitt (2017) found that the 

implementation of a particular teacher assessment system utilizing a VAM had several negative 

effects on teachers, including a decrease in collaboration and an increase in competition among 

teachers. Stone-Johnson (2015) found that teacher alienation due to accountability demands 

increased isolation and decreased collegial interactions with counselors over shared student 

responsibilities. 

 

In a second somewhat more developed sub-set of empirical studies, one issue involved 

the role collaborative structures play upon the implementation of a teacher evaluation system. 

The variance in findings on this issue is shown in the results from several research projects. First, 

as a part of a larger, multifaceted endeavor, Reinhorn, et al. (2017) reported on how six high-

performing, high-poverty schools implemented the then-new Massachusetts multiple-measure 

teacher evaluation (MMTES) system (see also Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Johnson, et al., 

2018). Their sample included all types of public schools (traditional, turnaround, restart, and 

charter), all of which had received the state’s highest accountability rating. The researchers 

sought to ascertain how these successful schools approached putting the state-mandated 

evaluation system into practice. Two findings highly relevant to evaluation/PLC interactions 

stand out from their detailed analysis. First, the schools integrated evaluation with other 

professional learning opportunities, including a form of PLC, as one component in a coordinated 

strategy for teacher improvement.  

In explaining the support they received, teachers often did not dis- 
tinguish between practices that were part of the evaluation system 
and others intended to improve their practice; as they say it, all were 
part of an ongoing, integrated improvement process. 
 

(Reinhorn, et al., 2017, p. 398). The quotation points to a second finding about how evaluation 

could be successfully implemented to improve teacher practice: the schools did not use 

 

47 

evaluation primarily for summative accountability; rather, they focused on the formative 

potential of evaluation. As the authors point out, “many [teachers] identified classroom 

observations and feedback as the most valuable component of their school’s developmental 

process” (Reinhorn, et al., 2017, p. 398; see also Taylor and Tyler, 2012). 

In a second comprehensive study that, like Reinhorn, et al. (2017), examined the 

implementation of a new MMTES, the sample in this case being eight schools in the New 

Orleans recovery district (Marsh, et al., 2017). The researchers identified three types of school 

responses to evaluation that they denominated “reflective,” “distortive,” and “compliant.” They 

considered the potential contribution of a number of factors to the schools’ responses to 

evaluation. They found that two school level organizational factors relating to teacher 

professional community facilitated the more beneficial “reflective” response—namely, shared 

instructional leadership, and structures for frequent collaboration. Among other things, the latter 

factor led to authentic collaboration with a “sense of accountability for continuous 

improvement[,]” and “also provided an avenue for enhanced peer accountability” (Marsh, et al., 

2017, p. 561). 

Third, Tichnor-Wagner, Harrison, and Cohen-Vogel (2016) conducted research on four 

large comprehensive high schools, two of which were highly effective and two less effective, to 

analyze the elements of a “culture of learning” present in each. The authors engage in an 

extended discussion of those elements, and in particular attend to the role of professional 

community in the face of research showing the threats posed by teacher evaluation and control-

oriented PLCs. Nonetheless, Tichnor-Wagner, et al. (2016) found that the cultures of leaning in 

the effective high schools were not only stronger in general, but also had developed specific 

structures and practices, as compared to the less effective high schools. Further, these key 

 

48 

elements included PLCs as structures that enhance formal collaboration; indeed, “key differences 

between [the two types of schools] were found in the mode and structures of collaboration and 

the frequency with which collaborative structures were enforced” (Tichnor-Wagner, 2016, p. 

619). 

Several researchers took varying approaches to framing the issue of evaluation/PLC 

relationships. Maslow and Kelley (2012) asked under what conditions teacher evaluation 

provides meaningful learning. They found that teacher evaluation could promote teacher 

professional learning through meaningful feedback. However, such evaluation required four 

conditions, two of which were an “organizational culture focused on advancing student learning” 

and “a strong collaborative school culture with a shared vision of high levels of learning for all 

students …” (Maslow and Kelley, 2012, p. 628). Jiang, et al. (2015) relied on a dataset from a 

large, detailed survey of Chicago teachers’ perceptions of the then-new teacher evaluation 

system. These authors concluded that teachers’ views on evaluation varied with their perceptions 

of the professional community leadership at their respective schools (teacher attributes played a 

role as well). Richmond and Manokore (2010) took a different approach: they introduced 

voluntary elementary grade-level PLCs as a targeted intervention to improve teachers’ 

elementary science instruction. Although the authors succeeded in establishing functional 

science PLCs, accountability pressure mainly affected science instruction indirectly. The 

emphasis on mathematics and literacy crowed out the time and attention teachers could devote to 

science. They maintained nonetheless that their PLC experiences helped teachers adjust to these 

constraints.  

  

A last group of research may provide indirect or analogic evidence bearing on the 

interaction of teacher evaluation and PLCs. These studied how the implementation of school 

 

49 

level accountability reforms acted upon PLCs, or at least the defining elements of professional 

community.  Thus, from her studies of probationary schools in Chicago, O’Day (2002, p. 308) 

observed that the more rapidly improving schools probably “differed significantly from other 

probation schools along several dimensions of initial school capacity: peer collaboration, 

teacher-teacher trust, and collective responsibility for student learning [reference omitted].” She 

later concluded that “[o]ur research in Chicago suggests that bureaucratic school accountability 

policies are insufficient to establish the patterns of interaction that might foster more effective 

information sharing in low-capacity schools” (O’Day, 2002, p. 311; see O’Day, 2008). 

Another study applied symbolic interaction theory to find uniquely negative effects of 

external accountability on teacher professional community (White and Rosenbaum, 2008). These 

authors showed that external accountability reoriented professional norms through its effects on 

prestigious teaching awards, teacher organizational status and control of resources, and teacher 

organizational stigma and withdrawal of resources. Those teachers who changed their 

professional attitudes and behaviors to obtain awards, and used strategies to achieve 

accountability goals, such as meeting test score targets gained status and access to school 

resources, which were denied other teachers who could not compete with them. The result was 

that, as external accountability distorted individual teacher behavior, it likewise altered school 

culture. Talbert and McLaughlin (2008) have similarly argued that external accountability 

encourages traditional teacher norms, such as private practice and individual autonomy, thereby 

undermining social cohesion and sustained collaboration. 

In contrast, two researchers have found largely positive effects. Using extensive data 

from 32 schools in ten districts across five states, Desimone (2013) demonstrated that standards-

based external accountability engendered positive change in several areas related to teacher 

 

50 

professional community and accountability, such as attention to struggling learners, 

responsibility for student learning, and classroom content and pedagogy. While acknowledging 

the stress and pressure associated with the reforms, Desimone (2013, p. 33) concluded that “[t]he 

findings here show that the testing and accountability system had moved schools in the desired 

direction—toward personal and group responsibility for student learning. Desimone further 

found that teachers had assumed substantial responsibility for responding to the reforms and 

changing their practices. She suggested that the transparent nature of the accountability (reported 

test results) encouraged teacher professionalism.  

Weathers’ (2014) reached conclusions like Desimone’s, but via a very different 

methodology. He set out to investigate the roles played by principal leadership and external 

accountability in teachers’ understanding of professional community. He used multi-level 

modeling of large-scale survey data to estimate the effect of school-level performance 

accountability policies on teacher community. His findings ranged from statistically non-

significant to weakly significant, depending on model specifications. He suggested that “top-

down policies that encourage (re-)examination of the core practices may foster a sense of 

community” as teachers work on a common set of practices to develop “a common language, 

trust, and mutual respect and accountability” (Weathers, 2011, p. 23). 

Another a small group of studies primarily concerns the effect of external school-level 

accountability on individual teacher attributes, from which a line is drawn to determinants of 

teacher community relating to professional or internal accountability. Buchanan (2015), for 

instance, studied the interaction of external accountability demands with teacher identity and 

agency; teacher characteristics and local context were considered mediating factors. She 

concluded that although teachers sacrificed professional identity and professionalism (in terms of 

 

51 

autonomy) due to external accountability pressure, resistance to these losses was most successful 

in schools with strong collaborative communities sharing a collective set of commitments and 

practices. Banerjee, et al. (2017) found that a “collective pedagogical teacher culture,” including 

a professional community of trust and common focus, as well as collaboration with collective 

responsibility, buffered the negative effect on student achievement of threats to teacher 

satisfaction level. However, Erichsen and Reynolds (2020) found nearly the opposite—i.e., 

collective pedagogical teacher culture, which they conceptualized as professional culture and 

teacher collaboration, did not buffer the otherwise deleterious effects of accountability pressures 

on teacher morale and job satisfaction (see also Finnigan and Gross, 2007). Another study 

involving teacher satisfaction and school organization under external accountability pressure 

highlighted the significance of professional and internal accountability (Johnson, et al., 2012). 

The researchers there investigated the work conditions most contributing to teacher satisfaction. 

The most significant were collegial relationships, principal leadership, and school culture 

(including trust and commitment). They then showed that the self-same elements were the 

strongest determinants of student achievement growth, and hence of school response to external 

accountability. Finally, and more generally, in Valli and Buese’s (2007) study of how teacher 

roles changed under accountability pressures, the collaborative role (like others) expanded and 

intensified at the same time it became more bureaucratic and less authentic. 

Whether positive or negative, direct or indirect, there’s some relationship, and often 

interaction, between professional community or culture and school or individual external 

accountability. Moreover, except where PLC and evaluation are implemented in an intentionally 

integrated manner, the direction of principal effects seems to run from evaluation to teacher 

collaboration and community. 

 

52 

Conclusion 

The largely siloed development of research pertaining to evaluation and PLC as divergent 

teacher quality policies seems mainly due to when and how each appealed to policymakers, 

practitioners, and researchers. A large majority of the relevant implementation literature focuses 

on evaluation or PLC, rather than on any significant relationship or interaction between them. 

Likewise, although researchers have studied teacher responses to one or the other, we know little 

about how teacher response to each may change in the face of the concurrent, potentially related 

demands of both.  

Even that research finding or reporting interactions, or potential interactions, fails to 

bridge the research gap because little or none explicitly examines evaluation and PLCs together 

as institutionalized or routinized, let alone as formal structures with which teacher must re-

engage each school year. Instead, these studies mostly involve (a) some combination of 

proposals to mitigate or resolve anticipated conflicts between evaluation and PLCs; (b) a focus 

on the implementation of evaluation, while treating PLCs, or some element necessary to them, as 

a supportive or obstructive condition or factor; and/or (c) limited or no attention to any 

mechanism of interaction and effect between evaluation and PLCs. At best, this research 

suggests that accountability pressures—whether applied at the school or teacher level—may 

affect or be affected by PLCs or related structures, processes, or resources. With the widespread 

establishment and operation of evaluation systems and PLC models together, it seems likely that 

some kind of interaction would be inevitable with consequent implications for the effectiveness 

of each policy, as well as for the coherence of both. 

 

53 

A substantial gap appears in the literature, one precisely where research would appear 

especially salient and beneficial to policymakers, practitioners and future researchers. This 

dissertation seeks to address that gap. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

54 

POLICY CONTEXT AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

CHAPTER 3 

 

 

The wide spread adoption and implementation of teacher evaluation systems and PLC 

models has occurred in a wide range of contexts. As detailed in Chapter 4, this study concerns 

these policies as institutionalized in Michigan districts and schools, and therefore in the 

Michigan evaluation and PLC policy context, the subject of the first section of this chapter. It 

describes the evaluation system mandated by state law, including the discretion left to districts 

and schools. The first section will likewise summarize the voluntary adoption by many Michigan 

districts of PLC models that frequently entailed formalized grade level/disciplinary content 

structures, goals and practices. In light of this context, the second section of this chapter sets 

forth the structure-agency lens through which this study examines the phenomenon of interest: 

teacher interacting responses to the related demands of PLC and evaluation in their schools.  

Michigan Teacher Evaluation and PLC Policy Context 

Michigan joined the state curriculum standards and testing movement in the 1990s that 

led to the adoption of NCLB (Mehta, 2014). Due mainly to the Obama Administration’s NCLB 

waiver policy and its Race to the Top (RTTT) program, teacher evaluation shot to the top of the 

policy agenda in many states, including Michigan. As part of its (unsuccessful) 2009 RTTT 

application, Michigan rapidly enacted the first prescriptively detailed teacher evaluation system 

as amendments to its Revised School Code (PA 2009, No. 205, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 2010, codified 

as Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249; see PA 2010, No. 336, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 2010). Other 

enabling legislation amended (1) the Public Employment Relations Act, Mich. Comp. Laws  

§§423.201, et seq. by prohibiting bargaining over teacher evaluation and related management 

rights, such as discipline and discharge, and lay-off and recall, and (2) the Teacher Tenure Act, 

Mich. Comp. Laws §§38.71, et seq. by substantially weakening substantive and procedural 

 

55 

tenure protections (Pogodzinski, et al., 2015). The opening sentence of the evaluation statute 

mandates that local district boards of education “shall adopt and implement for all teachers and 

school administrators a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system that does 

all of the following: …” (Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249(1)). Substantial revisions to the system 

occurred in 2011 (PA 2011, No. 102, Imd. Eff. July 19, 2011); and further, based on additional 

study (Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness [MCEE], 2013), the statute was more 

extensively updated in 2015 (PA 2015, No. 173, Imd. Eff. Nov. 5, 2015; see Michigan 

Department of Education, nd.b; Pogodzinski, et al., 2015). The policy turbulence has not 

completely abated: the most recent amendment, which again changed the weight given “student 

growth and assessment” measures in teachers’ final ratings, was enacted in 2018 for district and 

school implementation beginning in the 2018-19 school year, with an additional change 

beginning in the 2019-20 school year (PA 2018, No. 235, Eff. Sept. 25, 2018). 

According to the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), “[i]mplementing 

Michigan’s educator evaluation law with fidelity is a key strategy in our [MDE] efforts to see 

Michigan become a top ten education system within the next ten years.” Moreover, the proper 

conduct and use of individual teacher evaluations form an essential support for the state’s 

strategic goal “to ‘develop, support, and sustain a high-quality, prepared, and collaborative 

education workforce’” (MDE, nd.b, p. 4). Michigan’s teacher evaluation system is supposed to 

serve both summative and formative purposes (Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249; MDE, nd.b; 

Serdiouk, et al., 2017).  

The evaluation system applicable to the school year of this research (2019-2020) required 

an annual, year-end evaluation for all teachers that included the following:   

 

56 

  Forty percent of the evaluation must consist of student growth and assessment data; 

for core content areas (subjects and grades) subject to state assessment 50% of 

student growth must be measured by state assessment data; in other subjects and 

grades, this component must be based on multiple, rigorous, research-based and 

district-wide measures. 

  The other 60% of a teacher’s evaluation must be based primarily on their 

performance as measured by an observation tool, which is applied to a minimum of 

two classroom observations (one unscheduled) during the year. (First year 

probationary teachers and those previously rated low-performing are subject to 

additional performance planning and reporting.) The observation tool, incorporating a 

research-established teacher performance framework/rubric of teaching standards, 

must be state approved and district adopted. 

  The district must provide teachers with designated student data. Within 30 days of 

each classroom observation, teachers must also be provided with feedback from an 

observation. Teachers and evaluators must consult to develop performance goals and 

recommend professional development for the following school year. These 

requirements are intended as formative assessment to ensure that evaluation helps 

teachers improve professionally.  

  The summative, ranking purpose of the evaluation system is this: based on the 

determinations of the evaluation components, each teacher is assigned a numerical 

effectiveness rating, which falls within one categorical range of “ineffective,” 

“minimally effective,” “effective,” or “highly effective.” A teacher’s only appeal lies 

with the district’s superintendent, who is the final decisionmaker. 

 

57 

(Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249; MDE, nd.b).  

 

A district is supposed to use a teacher’s effectiveness rating as the primary determinant of 

all significant employment decisions concerning that teacher, including renewal/non-renewal of 

probationary contracts, grants of tenure status, and lay-off and recall (Mich. Comp. Laws 

§380.1249(1)(d); see Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1248). Without limiting a district’s power to 

dismiss any teacher for poor performance, the statute explicitly requires dismissal on three 

consecutive years of an “ineffective” rating (Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249(2)(j)). A teacher can 

only have the annual evaluation requirement reduced to a biannual one by receiving three 

consecutive “highly effective” evaluations and maintaining that rating thereafter (Mich. Comp. 

Laws §380.1249(2)(k)). 

The state statute does provide for district discretion within certain components of the 

evaluation system (Pogodzinski, et al., 2015). Procedurally, each district selects (and provides 

the resources for) the technological hard- and software necessary to conducting evaluations each 

year, along with the system for data entry, retention, analysis and reporting. Each district 

provides for evaluator training and supervision, even as it must also inform teachers about the 

process components, timeline and content requirements. More substantively, unless it bears the 

expense of creating and gaining MDE approval of its own “evaluation tool,” each district selects 

from a state-approved list of five the one tool, the instrument with a specified set of teaching 

standards and scores, that its administrators will use during classroom observations and that will 

apply to other teacher evidentiary submissions (Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249(2)(f)). Each 

district possesses some discretion to decide on the allowable evidence of student growth, as well 

as the method by which student growth is ascertained. However, as noted above, the statute’s 

several amendments constrain the scope of district decision making by increasing the weight of 

 

58 

the student growth component and by more narrowly specifying the nature and source of student 

growth data that must be used (Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249(2)(a); MDE, nd.b).  

Research on Michigan’s dual-purpose evaluation system, almost all of it conducted or 

commissioned by MDE, showed substantial variation in its implementation and in educators’ 

perceptions. To begin with, plausibly due to the obvious “tension between the dual roles of the 

educator evaluation system” (Ray Taylor and Associates, 2017, p. 6), 97% of surveyed teachers 

and 96% of administrators surveyed said evaluation should be used for a formative purpose, but 

the respective percentages drop to 42% and 67% when asked for what purpose the evaluation 

system is used. Teacher and administrator perceptions similarly differed with respect to the 

positive versus negative effects of evaluation on stress, competition, collaboration, student 

learning, and fairness in identifying under-performing teachers (Cameron-Standerford, et al., 

2017). 

The reported survey results find support in the evidence of the decidedly mixed 

implementation of the evaluation feedback requirement, at least from the teacher perspective 

(Cameron-Standerford, et al., 2017; Marzano Research, 2017; Ray Taylor and Associates, 2017; 

Rowan, et al., 2013; Serdiouk, et al., 2017).  Ray Taylor and Associates (2017, p. 6), for 

instance, found that teachers “report little useful feedback to improve their professional practice 

and support their professional growth.” Hence, at least on the teacher view, the summative goal 

seemed to predominate in practice (Cameron-Standerford, et al., 2017; Ray Taylor and 

Associates, 2017). Further, with the focus on completing the annual summative assessment, the 

quality, value and utility of the formative assessment components varied widely due to the 

predictable, understandable, practical constraints on evaluator time, motivation and expertise 

 

59 

(Camerton-Standerford, et al., 2017; Marzano Research, 2017; Ray Taylor and Associates, 2017; 

Rowan, et al., 2013; Serdiouk, et al., 2017; see Papay, 2012; Woodland and Mazur, 2015).  

If the system’s formative goal often receives short shrift, the summative goal is far less 

successful at distinguishing among levels of teacher quality. MDE statewide data shows the 

percentage distribution of teacher performance ratings between the 2014-15 and the 2018-19 

school years: 

 

School Year 

Table 3.1 Michigan Teacher Effectiveness Ratings 
% Highly 
Effective 

% Minimally 

% Effective 

Effective 

 

 

% Ineffective 

2014-15 
2015-16 
2016-17 
2017-18 
2018-19 

2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
    Source: Adapted from MI School Data, www.mischooldata.org  

42 
42 
39 
40 
41 

56 
56 
59 
58 
58 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

 
In the same period, the total number of evaluated K-12 teachers in Michigan rose from 94,972 to 

102,437, a 7.9% increase. In short, while 98-99% of Michigan teachers have been rated effective 

and above, almost no one has been rated minimally effective or ineffective rate (see Lenhoff, 

2012; MDE, nd.a; see Kraft and Gilmour, 2017). If Michigan’s evaluation system is a “high-

stakes” policy on paper, in practice it is anything but. 

Years before the legislature began reforming teacher evaluation state-wide, Michigan 

enacted reforms in state curriculum standards and assessments (Mehta, 2014). With the advent of 

NCLB, Michigan joined its sister states to greatly elaborate and strengthen its system of test-

based school accountability. Responding in part to school improvement pressures, and in part to 

the latest reform bandwagon, many Michigan districts and schools, like many nationwide, 

adopted formalized professional community or teacher collaborative team models (Blankenship 

and Ruona, 2007; Brouwer, et al., 2012; Charner-Laird, et al.; Feger and Arruda, 2008; Levine, 

2010). Despite a plethora of names and configurations (Levine, 2010; Stoll, et al., 2006), by this 

 

60 

time in the reform movement, the formalized PLC models promoted, adopted and implemented 

share a common theory of action and similar design features, including certain organizational 

structures and supports, that are considered key to their effectiveness (Brouwer, et al., 2012; 

Hord, 1997; Levine, 2010; Stoll, et al., 2006).  

One commonly implemented structural unit is the teacher team organized and functioning 

as a grade-level/content PLC. The grade-level/content PLC is an essential building block because 

so much PLC work involves the curriculum, assessment, instruction, and student learning 

pertaining to teachers’ particular classes, whether organized at the grade level (as in elementary 

schools) or by department/disciplinary content (as in middle and high schools) (e.g., Dufour, 

2004; Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2015). Furthermore, the organization/membership of PLCs is just 

one structural feature that serves to formalized and routinize PLCs as implemented. There are 

many others, including, for example, PLC-specific professional development for teachers and 

administrators; a regular calendar of PLC meetings (which often means altering the school day 

schedule); specification of PLC goals, tasks, activities and products, which often involving the 

development of group norms and the use of protocols; supervisory requirements or expectations, 

typically instantiated in the submission of PLC agendas, minutes, and products, as well as 

administrator observation of and participation in meetings (e.g., DuFour, 2004; DuFour and 

Eaker, 1998; Feger and Arruda, 2008; Leine, 2010; Stoll, et al., 2006). 

The significance of formalized structures, together with an emphasis on grade-

level/content PLC, is exemplified by one of the more prominent models a number of Michigan 

districts have adopted. This is the PLC model developed by Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker, 

and widely promoted by DuFour, later with his wife Rebecca DuFour (e.g., DuFour and Eaker, 

1999; DuFour et al., 2004). For example, in the early aughts, Oakland Schools, the intermediate 

 

61 

school district (ISD) for Oakland County, Michigan, organized at least three cohorts of 

constituent districts to receive extensive DuFour training and follow-up support services. At least 

in southeastern Michigan, leading ISDs, such as Wayne Count RESA and Macomb ISD, began 

(and continue) providing professional development on the DuFour model. The DuFours and 

colleagues have continued to present summer PLC “institutes” in Michigan and other 

midwestern states, and they have created an application and approval process for “Model PLC 

Schools.” 

The relevant policy context, in sum, encompasses two formalized, well-established and 

functioning teacher quality reform policies. In Michigan, state law has imposed a teacher 

performance evaluation system on districts and schools for nearly a decade. For years, too, many 

of the same districts and schools have adopted and implemented a PLC model that teachers enact 

in grade-level/content groups as tasked and supervised by district and building administrators. 

These reforms were independently developed, adopted, and implemented, even as each made 

(and makes) its own demands for teacher response (Woodland and Mazur, 2015; Jones, et al., 

2016). When multiple policies are in fact implemented in such a context, much uncertainty and 

many questions necessarily arise around the policies’ interaction and joint influences on 

teachers’ work and working conditions, which ultimately affect teaching and learning (Knapp, et 

al., 1998). Here an apparent fragmentation of reform demands (Srinivasan and Archer, 2018) 

makes coherence crafting in response a highly important and salient research topic (Honig and 

Hatch, 2004; Stosich, 2018).  

A Structure-Agency Approach to a Coherence Challenge and Resulting Research Questions 

Woodland and Mazur (2015, p. 20) aptly point out that: 

 

American public education is experiencing a watershed moment. 
Educator Evaluation and PLCs, what we have called “the hammer 

62 

 

 

and the hug,” are two of our nation’s most predominant approaches 
to instructional improvement, yet in most states Ed Eval and PLCs 
are not linked, educator account ability and professional learning 
are widely treated as separate policy initiatives [reference omitted]. 
These two prevailing reform strategies often appear  to exist at cross- 
purposes…. 

 
(See Darling-Hammond, 2013; Johnson, 2015; Jones, et al., 2016; Valli, et al., 2007). Talbert 

(2010, p. 560) argues more pointedly thus: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Centralized accountability systems can work against the development 
of mutual teacher accountability. … Further, emphasis on individual 
teacher quality, curriculum implementation in each classroom, and 
monitoring of teaching fidelity undermines principles of collective 
responsibility and improvement. Teachers’ attention is focused on 
compliance rather than accountability to colleagues for developing 
new instructional interventions…  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The prima facie incoherence of evaluation and PLC, and the problematic position in which 

teachers find themselves with the implementation of both (e.g., Hewitt, 2015; Stone-Johnson, 

2016), are suggested by the comparison indicated in Table 3.2.  

Table 3.2 Idealized PLC Model and Teacher Evaluation System Characteristics 
Teacher Performance 

PLCs 

Characteristic 

 

Problem to Address 

 

Teacher isolation, privatization of practice, 
norm of equality; constrained professional 

learning and social capital formation 

 

c. 1995-2010 
NCLB (2001) 

Evaluation 

Lack of effective personal 
performance evaluation and 

accountability; 

the “widget effect” 

 

c. 2006-present 
RTTT (2009) 

 Period of expanding 

adoption and 

principal triggering 

event 

 

High Level Goal 

Goal, re: teacher 

professional 
development 

 

Students directly 

benefited 

Policy design 

approach 

 

Primary target/focus 

 

Improve individual and collective 

(school-level) teacher capacity/practice 

Increase teacher and organizational learning 
and social capital, applying shared expertise 

to individual practice 

All students of all PLC teacher-members 

Improve individual and collective 

(school-level) teacher 

capacity/practice 

Facilitate improvements in teacher 
practice through standards-based 
formative assessment and feedback 

 

(common disciplinary content 

Students of each evaluated teacher 

 +/or grade level) 

 

 

Build professional commitment  

Assert bureaucratic control 

Teachers-members in professional 
communities (formalized groups) 

 

Individual teachers 

 

63 

Table 3.2 (cont’d) 

 

Low 

  

 

High 

 

School (indirectly) 

Individual teacher (directly) 

Professional development through  

collaborative learning, teacher  

commitment, and shared responsibility 

 

Mechanism for 

collective (school) 

improvement 

Improve and sustain organizational learning; 

align individual and collective teacher 

responsibilities to improve practice 

Appropriate and actionable feedback 

based on teaching standards and 

observation 

Use summative teacher ratings to 
dismiss in- effective teachers and 
retain/compensate more effective 
teachers, thus raising the aggregate 
school level of teacher effectiveness 

 

Degree of 

centralization  
of accountability 

 

Level on which 

external 

accountability 

imposed 

 

Mechanism for 

individual teacher 

improvement 

 

School-level  
implementation 

approach  

 

Primary district role 

 

Primary building 
administration role 

 

Primary teacher role 

Teacher Motivation 

Teacher Peer 
Relationship 

Individual teacher 

stakes 

 

Bureaucratic to professional 

Summative to formative 

 

Decide on adoption of PLC model, provide 
resources for implementation at school level 

 

Implement, supervise and maintain 

district-selected PLC system, and facilitate 

desired PLC work and outputs 

 

Engage with system as peer participant and 
learner in required tasks to produce desired 

group outputs and improve practice 

Primarily intrinsic 

 

Cooperative/collegial 

 

Low 

Comply with state mandates provide 

resources for implementation, 

make/approve teacher 
employment decisions 

Comply with state and district 

mandates to implement evaluation 

system by conducting evaluations and 

producing required system outputs 
Engage with system as subject of 

evaluation to demonstrate 

accountability, utilize formative 

feedback, and obtain summative rating 

Primarily extrinsic 

 

Comparative/competitive 

 

High 

            Source: Dissertation author, as derived from literature. 

 

Teachers, the common policy target of these disparate reforms, at a minimum must annually 

respond to the demands of both PLC and evaluation, including separately mandated engagements 

year after year, both as individual employees and as group members working in nested contexts 

of the individual, PLC, school, district and beyond (McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001). 

Furthermore, not only have dual demands required that teachers somehow respond, but over a 

number of school years they have actually done so, though we know little about how their 

 

64 

responses have interacted or how the interaction of demands as implemented has affected 

responses.    

These very facts nonetheless imply that, despite the potential for conflict between 

formalized structures of evaluation and professional community, teachers might well develop a 

strong motivation and adaptive ability to play a role in crafting their own individual and 

collective coherence, which the concurrent implementation by administration might help or 

hinder (Honig and Hatch, 2004; see Knapp, et al., 1998; Shirrell, 2016; Stosich, 2018; Tichnor-

Wagner, et al., 2016). Such a hypothesis seems plausible for several reasons. First, in the 

conceptualization of Honig and Hatch (2004), districts and schools mainly craft coherence along 

a continuum of bridging and buffering actions (see DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2005). A 

dynamic bridging/buffering strategy could explicitly or implicitly provide linkages, or 

opportunities for linkages, between evaluation and PLC. Although they do not use the 

terminology of crafting coherence, the literature on PLC/evaluation interaction includes 

proposed integration or reconciliation of the two—for example, either through a tiered system of 

job-embedded professional development based on performance standards (Woodland and Mazur, 

2015), or by developing assessments of teacher team performance as a significant component of 

evaluation (Jones, et al., 2016). 

Second, as pointed out in the policy context discussion above, evaluation and PLC 

elements and products are concerned with many of the same educational content and tasks. The 

evaluation system in Michigan has components requiring (1) professional learning or growth 

goal-setting, assessment and reflection; (2) observation, assessment and feedback around 

curricular standards, lesson planning, instructional practices, and student assessments; and (3) the 

data collection, analysis and measurement of student performance. Much the same is fodder for 

 

65 

PLC work, albeit occurring in a very different organizational context through very different 

processes. DuFour (2004, p. 10) at once captures some of what makes PLCs distinctive and what 

overlaps with evaluation (where emphasis supplied): 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

            Collaborative conversations call on [PLC] team members to 
make public what has traditionally been private—goals, strategies, 
materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results. … 

 
Teams must focus their efforts on crucial questions related to 
learning and generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of  
essential outcomes, different kinds of assessments, analyses of student 
achievement, and strategies for improving results. Teachers must dev- 
elop norms or protocols to clarify expectations regarding roles, respon- 
sibilities, and relationships among team members.  

 
(See also Feger and Arruda, 2008). Practical connections like these could in effect incentivize 

teachers (and administrators) to locate efficiencies in their engagement with both. 

Finally, some research finds that teachers have engaged in coherence-making when two 

conflicting education policies make concurrent demands on teachers. For example, applying a 

sensemaking framework, Russell and Bray (2013) studied the responses of special education 

teachers to perceived inconsistences between NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Act 

(IDEA) that adversely affected their work with students. Similarly, Stosich (2018) in a multiple 

case study investigated the variance in how teachers and principals in several elementary schools 

tried to integrate the demands of teacher evaluation and the Common Core State Standards. 

Robinson (2012) focused on how teachers in Australia developed individual and collective 

“professional agency” as the means to resolve compliance with two conflicting “policy texts” 

consisting of student reporting regulations, one issued by the state government, the other by the 

federal government. Despite differing methodologies, contexts, and mechanisms, all these 

studies recognize that teachers’ responses reflect attempts to address incoherence in converging 

policy demands. 

 

66 

These reasons, together with the policy context, suggest that concurrent PLC and 

evaluation demands present a recurring coherence challenge to teachers who are subject to both 

in a given district/school context. To examine and understand the nature of the challenge and 

how (if at all) teachers respond to it, this study takes a structure-agency approach. A structure-

agency conceptual framework well fits the problem and purpose of this research because, at base, 

PLC and evaluation demands are structures that condition but do not determine teacher 

responses; to the contrary, the exercise of some degree and kind of agency is part and parcel of 

teacher responses. Moreover, through its focus on the relationship between and the interaction of 

policy structure and policy target agency, this analytical approach illuminates policy 

implementation and institutional change (Burch, 2007; Coburn, 2016; Rigby, et al., 2016). 

Indeed, “the question of policy implementation is fundamentally about the relationship between 

social structure and agency”; and further, according to scholars in the field, “the process of 

policy implementation is, at root, a process of institutionalization [reference omitted]” (Coburn, 

2016, pp. 466, 469; see Burch, 2007). 

“Structure” comprises the rules, relationships and resources that together constitute 

regularized patterns serving organizational purposes and functions, such as guiding and 

constraining organizational activities and behavior, and dividing organizational work and 

authority (Chingara and Heystek, 2019; Coburn, 2016; Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018; Rigby, et 

al., 2016). Importantly, structural rules may be formal or informal, and they include social and 

organizational norms rules and norms (Woulfin, 2016; see Coburn, 2016). From an 

organizational actor’s point of view, structures are how one “understands how things should be 

done, practices organized around those understandings and capabilities that support those 

 

67 

understandings” (Rigby, et al., 2016, p. 296; see Chingara and Heystek, 2019; Donaldson and 

Woulfin, 2018). 

“Agency,” in contrast, is an individual’s capacity to take action, to act with some social 

effect (Coburn, 2016; Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018; Rigby, et al., 2016). Agentic capacity 

includes the ability to alter the constituents of structure—i.e., rules, relationships, resources 

(Coburn, 2016). The actual use of that ability is shown by actors’ discretion in implementation, 

discretion that is exercised in response to education policy demands (Donaldson and Woulfin, 

2018). 

The research reviewed in Chapter 2, together with the discussion of the policy context 

and coherence challenge in this chapter show beyond doubt that PLC and evaluation each entail 

distinct structures, structures that make demands of teachers, including demands for teacher 

engagement with those very rules, relationships and resources that inform, guide and constrain 

how “PLC’ing” and teacher evaluating are done (Chingara and Heystek, 2019; Coburn, 2016; 

Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018; Rigby, et al., 2016). Particularly as formally established and 

supervised by district/school administration, the structure of PLC includes the organization and 

membership of teacher teams; all manner of logistics for PLC meetings and work; PLC norms, 

expectations and oversight; and PLC goals, activities, tasks and products (e.g., DuFour, 2004; 

DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Feger and Arruda, 2008; Leine, 2010; Stoll, et al., 2006). By contrast, 

state law instantiates the basic structure of teacher evaluation by mandating that every district 

have a performance evaluation system meeting certain content and process requirements (Mich. 

Comp. Laws §380.1249(1); MDE, nd.b). The legally required components, shaped by 

district/school implementation, involve teacher/evaluator communications and interactions, 

formal and informal observations, professional standards and assessment rubrics, data collection 

 

68 

and student growth computation, and a final summative rating (Mich. Comp. Laws §380,1249; 

MDE nd.b; Pogodzinski, et al., 2015; see, e.g., Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018). The structures of 

PLC and evaluation surely constrain teacher responses to their respective demands, but those 

responses are not wholly determined. Indeed, by the very nature and terms of the demands, 

teachers retain and exercise a degree of agency in how they engage with and respond to each 

(e.g., Lane, 2020; Stosich, 2017; Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2015; Stoll, et al., 2006; Thiel, 

Schweizer, and Bellmann, 2017). 

This study extends a structure-agency approach to schools where two policy structures 

with interaction opportunities converge in recursively demanding teacher agentic responses, 

which themselves may interact through the structures. Figure 3.1 depicts conceptually the 

relevant structures, agentic responses, and relationships among them. 

 

 

69 

Figure 3.1 Teacher Responses to PLC and Evaluation Structures with Adaptive Responses Through Related Structures 

 

70 

 

The red rectangles in Figure 3.1 represent the separate structures of PLC and evaluation 

as implemented by administration in a school. As the red arrows indicate, those structures each 

make demands on teachers, both individually and as participants in a particular PLC and with a 

particular evaluator in the evaluation system. Each teacher-PLC member directly responds to the 

separate PLC and evaluation demands by agentic participation in each structural process during a 

school year (green arrows). Teacher agency is not exhausted by the direct participatory responses 

to PLC and evaluation (green arrows). Rather, it may be expected that, whether by 

administration implementation design or teacher implementation adaptation, the interaction of 

the different structures, shown by the orange arrows, may result from related structural elements, 

which the orange rectangle represents. Now, through the relationship and interaction of 

PLC/evaluation structures, teacher agentic engagement in PLC can itself affect teacher response 

to evaluation (dark blue arrows), and vice versa (light blue arrows), in either case, phenomena I 

will call “adaptive response strategies.” 

From a structure-agency perspective, it is the dynamic intertwining of structural demands 

and agentic responses that tends toward aligning the implementations of, as well as altering the 

outcomes of, both teacher quality policies. A structure-agency framework thus provides a path 

toward understanding and explaining the phenomenon of interest. It is powerful lens through 

which to examine how teachers, through the exercise of their individual and collective agency in 

interaction with institutionalized teacher quality structures, participate in the crafting of 

coherence between them. 

Following from the structure-agency representation in Figure 3.1, the statement of this 

study’s research questions rely on structure-agency concepts, as follows:  

 

71 

1.  How, if at all, do teachers adapt their agentic responses to perfor-                                 

mance evaluation and professional learning community demands                         
as they respond to the structures of both? 
 

2.  How, if at all, does the relationship between structures of perform- 

ance evaluation and professional learning community shape teachers’ 
adaptive responses? 

 
The first research question focuses on the teacher agency side, the second on the policy structure 

side of the structure-agency approach. But the questions together require an investigation into the 

relationship between policy demand structures of and teacher agentic responses to evaluation and 

PLC. Accordingly, the next chapter addresses the research design and methodology that is well-

fit for this research task. 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

72 

RESEARCH DESIGN and METHODOLOGY 

CHAPTER 4 

To answer its research questions, this dissertation relies on a multiple explanatory case 

study in two comprehensive high schools in separate Michigan school districts. The case study 

design focuses on nine “focus teachers” equally distributed among three “focus PLCs” as 

embedded units of analysis; it is seeking to achieve an explanatory goal; and it provides for 

effective within and cross case analyses. Data collection and analysis occurred during the 2019-

2020 school year as focus teachers, per job requirements, engaged with, and so responded to, the 

respective demands of the teacher evaluation and PLC structures of their district and school. 

The purpose of this chapter lies in elaborating this dissertation’s research design and the 

execution of its methodology, which have been briefly indicated. The chapter first describes the 

case study design and gives the rationale for using a case study method. The chapter’s second 

section proceeds to the sampling strategy for the case high schools and follows to an 

identification of the individual research participants—focus teachers and administrators—

together with the focus PLCs in the two districts/schools. The third and fourth sections explain, 

respectively, the data collection and data analysis processes that have been conducted. The final 

chapter section describes how the validity of the findings of this research are established.    

Multiple Explanatory Case Study Design 

Creswell (2013, p. 97 [author’s emphasis]) describes a “case study” in terms of its 

defining elements that imply when a case study design is a good research fit: 

[A case study is a] qualitative approach in which the investigator 
explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or  
multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed,  
in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information  
(e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents 
and reports), and reports a case description and case themes. 

 

 

73 

(See also Patton, 2015; Miles, et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Taking a somewhat different tact, Yin 

(2014, p. 9) specifies three conditions befitting of a case study design: “(a) the type of research 

question posed is a how or why question; (b) the researcher cannot manipulate the behavior of 

study participants; and (c) the study focuses on contemporary events” (see Baxter and Jack, 

2008). Further, when Yin (2014) identifies three types of case study, he in effect distinguishes 

three possible purposes for a case study: (1) an exploratory case study advances research 

questions, hypotheses, and processes for future research to use or pursue; (2) a descriptive case 

study gives a detailed depiction of a phenomenon in its actual context; and (3) an explanatory 

case study presents a state of affairs, how or why it came to be.  

 

An explanatory case study design readily fits the instant study. The research questions on 

their face not only anticipate Yin’s three conditions, but also have answers with an explanatory 

purpose (2014, p. 9). The policies and policy context, moreover, can be studied in detail and in-

depth as implemented by educators in real-life, multiple bounded systems called schools, and 

with the reporting of case descriptions and themes (Creswell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; see 

Baxter and Jack, 2008; Patton, 2015). The selected methodology, in sum, represents a strong 

design choice, as it satisfies the applicable criteria, however articulated. 

This explanatory case study is a multiple or collective one because it gathers 

comprehensive data from each of at least two cases of interest for in-depth study and comparison 

(Patton, 2015; see Baxter and Jack, 2008; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014). A primary advantage of this 

aspect of the research design is that “[m]ultiple-case sampling adds confidence to findings” 

(Miles, et al., 2014, p. 33; authors’ emphasis). This advantage results in large measure from the 

opportunity to establish, compare, and confirm (or not) analytic findings from more than a single 

context or data set (Yin, 2014). 

 

74 

The key according to Baxter and Jack (2008), Yin (2014), and Miles, et al. (2014) is the 

replication of each case’s results—here, how each case contributes to ascertaining and 

comparing teachers’ agentic responses to PLC and evaluation demands as emerging from their 

engagement with, and as shaped by, interacting structures. In the Stake’s terminology, this 

research falls on the “instrumental,” as opposed to the “intrinsic,” end of the continuum of 

multiple or collective case studies because the cases together are “examined mainly to provide 

insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization” (Stake, 2005, p. 445; see also Patton, 2015). 

Confidence in any generalization or comparison is further enhanced because the units of analysis 

are the focus teachers/focus PLC members embedded or nested in each case high school (Patton, 

2015). As more fully explained in the following sections, the research design as proposed and as 

executed had a substantial probability of effectively enabling persuasive answers to the research 

questions. 

Sampling Strategy and Participants 

My sampling strategy consisted of a purposeful selection. As Maxwell (2013, p. 97; 

emphasis supplied) explains:   

In this strategy, particular settings, persons, or activities are selected 
deliberatively to provide information that is particularly relevant  
to your questions and goals, and that can’t be gotten as well from 
other choices. … Selecting those times, settings, and individuals that 
can provide you with the information that you need to answer your 
research questions is the most important consideration in qualitative 
selection decisions. 

 
My strategy was the type of purposeful selection that Patton (2015, p. 267) calls “comparison-

focused” because it involved the selection of “cases to compare and contrast to learn about the 

factors that explain similarities and differences.” A multiple case sampling design for 

 

75 

comparison and contrast should occur at the level of the phenomenon of interest (Miles, et al., 

2014; Patton, 2015). 

 

My research problem, questions and design together reflect that the phenomenon of 

interest is the interaction of teacher agentic responses to related PLC and evaluation demand 

structures as implemented in high schools confronting a significant coherence challenge. The 

research was to focus on whether and how teachers adapted their agentic responses, and on 

whether and how related demand structures shaped those responses in the usual, ordinary course 

of a typical, “normal” school year. That is, my research interest lay in certain basic processes 

that routinely play out in the context of teachers’ regular work in regularly operating schools, and 

not in a context of initial implementation or of other special circumstances such as high 

accountability pressure or financial distress (see Lane, 2020). Indeed, the presence of unusual 

external forces in the case schools’ context could undermine the goals of this research through an 

unrelated, but disproportionate, effect on the processes under study. 

By the 2019-2020 school year, many districts and schools had institutionalized and 

routinized processes of teacher evaluation and PLC, along with even earlier reforms such as 

school level accountability systems. The schools and their districts still had ongoing coherence 

challenges, and teachers still had to navigate multiple demands. In the vast majority of these 

schools, however, teacher evaluation had proven to lack high stakes (see, e.g., Table 3.1; Kraft 

and Gilmore, 2017), and the professional accountability which PLCs were to develop was of a 

different order altogether (see, e.g., Adams and Kirst, 1999; Mϕller, 2008). Further, most of 

these schools posted mid-range results in terms of school-level accountability measures, being 

neither especially high nor low performers. Therefore, to keep the focus on the phenomenon of 

interest, and to obtain the data to answer the research questions, the case schools would be 

 

76 

intentionally drawn from this large set of “typical” schools, and so school contexts, in which 

teacher evaluation and PLC were routinely implemented each school year while not subject to 

disproportionate influence from any obvious external source.  

I chose high schools as case schools for several reasons. First, high schools “occupy a 

strategic, intermediate position in the education system” (McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001, p. 125), 

especially in the era of stakeholder and policymaker demands for graduates’ “college and career 

readiness.” Yet, extensive reform attention to this school level is relatively recent. Second, due to 

such characteristics as size, organization, program, resources and composition, high schools 

present an unusually challenging (and interesting) context for the implementation of multiple 

reforms, including those involving accountability and professional community (e.g., Little, 

2002b; Tichnor-Wagner, et al., 2016). In addition, the same distinctive characteristics offer more 

variation within each system—i.e., more PLCs over more content areas; more administrators 

evaluating more teachers’ performances; more opportunities for the interaction of PLC and 

evaluation demands and responses. The degree of such variation may well heighten the 

coherence challenge or relating demand structures as it broadens the scope for teacher responses. 

Finally, my personal experience as a high school teacher would facilitate my understanding of 

and communication with focus teachers, my ability to build rapport with research participants, 

and my navigation of high school systems and processes.  

The strategy of sampling similar cases but for the phenomenon of interest, which forms 

the basis of potentially revealing comparisons, constitutes an approach that Miles, et al. (2015, p. 

32), following Goetz and LeCompte (1984), call “comparable case selection.” It is a form of 

replication strategy commonly and appropriately employed in multiple case study research (see 

also Yin, 2014). For the reasons stated above, I wanted to apply the strategy while minimizing, to 

 

77 

the extent possible, significant differences in external factors, such as accountability pressure, 

resources, or teacher or student populations, that might distort or overly influence the functioning 

of the two teacher quality systems under study. The critical variable for attention, examination 

and comparison would instead lie in the “street level” functioning of and teachers’ engagements 

with the related demands of PLC and evaluation. By design, this study could then be properly 

centered on the case-embedded units of analysis—namely, the focus PLCs with their respective 

focus teacher-members, whose interacting responses might play a role in addressing the 

coherence challenge. Moreover, this sort of sampling from a relatively large pool of potential 

case schools served practical considerations of participant recruitment and site access. 

Accordingly, I sought a sample of two similar high schools, each with similarly 

formalized systems of grade level/content PLCs. As schools within traditional K- or pre-K-12 

districts, the candidate comprehensive high schools would be of middling size and situated in 

similar middle-sized locales by area, population and density—i.e., neither urban nor rural. Both 

high schools would offer and provide the same or similar educational program and support 

services. Both would be at least broadly comparable in student and teacher demographic make-

up, as well as in student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school accountability rating 

measures. Thus, neither would be especially high performing or low performing; neither would 

be subject to high accountability pressure or threatened by accountability sanctions.  Both would 

be adequately resourced with no experience or danger of financial distress. Of course, any two 

candidate schools would be implementing the state mandated evaluation system, requiring the 

same kind of engagement by their teacher-members, who would also be evaluated with respect to 

the same sort of subject matter curricula, pedagogical content knowledge and instructional 

performance, and student assessments and student growth measures.  

 

78 

 With respect to PLCs, each case high school would have to be large enough to have 

grade-level/content PLCs with teacher membership determined at the beginning of the school 

year and remaining stable throughout it. Each PLC would have at least two members whose 

primary assignment was the same grade-level/content, although an overly large PLC, say with 

more than five members, would complicate comparisons and practicalities. The PLCs would 

have regular dedicated meeting times during the teacher work day, together with established 

expectations for participation, tasks and products, with some system of administrative 

supervision.  

It would be helpful for within case comparison if the two grade-level/content PLCs in 

each high school were in different departments within the principal disciplines—English 

Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Science, Social Studies. It would be helpful for cross-case 

comparison to have PLCs from the same two departments in both high schools. These four 

departments tend to have larger and more stable teacher memberships. In addition, as state-tested 

subjects, state law specified the same student growth measure and weighting. These core 

subjects, particularly Math and ELA, were (and are) often figure most prominently in teacher 

quality, school improvement and accountability plans, measures and attention. 

Based on the desired characteristics outlined above, I began several rounds of contacting 

by email and telephone contact districts’ central office administrators (e.g., superintendents, 

assistant superintendents for curriculum and instruction, secondary education directors) and high 

school principals. I first concentrated on districts with high schools that (1) were within the 

appropriate range of size, (2) had an established system of PLCs organized by grade-

level/content, (3) shared similar locale classification (e.g., suburban or town locale of similar 

size), and (4) were within a reasonable driving distance from my home or MSU. I identified 

 

79 

potentially appropriate districts, high schools and administrators through (a) personal knowledge 

from sixteen years of high school teaching and teacher leadership positions; (b) introductions and 

recommendations from contacts in K-12 education, especially among ISD educators and teacher 

union representatives; and (c) online research involving state-collected district/school data and 

district/school web sites. With each round of contacts, I expanded the range of potentially 

qualifying criteria listed above, except for (2), which often proved difficult to determine before 

initial contact and expression of interest. 

 

Just after the student school year began in September, 2019, the administration in one 

district and high school agreed to access. With administrative support, the high school ELA 

department chair agreed to recruit her grade-level/content PLC (ELA 11). Of its five members, 

three (including the department chair) consented to full participation; the remaining two 

consented to observation in PLC meetings, but declined interviews and questionnaires for 

reasons of time and personal circumstance unrelated to the study. Because this PLC would be 

meeting in the third week of September, I immediately began working with the consenting 

teachers in the ELA 11 PLC. Meanwhile, I was under the impression that a Math PLC would 

similarly agree to participate. However, after a long delay in arranging communication and 

meeting with the department chair, and further delay in communications with the Math teachers, 

participation was declined. Requests to the Science and Social Studies departments where 

likewise unsuccessful. I thus continued with one PLC and three of its teacher-members as full 

study participants. 

 

Eventually, in October, a second high school satisfying my criteria, particularly those 

pertaining to size and PLC model, agreed to provide access. The principal ensured that the 

 

80 

district consented, and he arranged me to meet with and secure consents from the three teacher-

members of the ELA 10 and of the Math 10 (Geometry) grade-level/content PLCs. 

 

As Table 4.1 shows, the two districts, Woodford Public Schools and Walker Public 

School District, are broadly comparable. (As noted in each table, all names are pseudonyms.) 

Although the first recruited, Woodford, is relatively larger and has a more racially/ethnically 

diverse student enrollment, other student demographics are similar in percentage terms. In 

addition, both report similar indicators of financial health and stability, including student 

enrollment numbers and a net positive benefit from being schools of choice. Their respective 

districtwide distributions of teacher effectiveness ratings both match the statewide figures (Table 

3.1 above). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81 

Table 4.1 Comparison of Participating District Data 

Districtwide Data 

State Region 

Community Locale 

Per Pupil Foundation Allowance 

Per Pupil Revenue 

Per Pupil Instructional Expenditure 

Woodford 

South-Central 

Suburb 
$8,200 
$11,400 
$7,000 

Walker 
Southeast 
Suburb 
$8,500 
$10,500 
$6,200 

Data Year 

n/a 
n/a 

2019-20 
2018-19 
2018-19 

Total Student Enrollment 

5400/5550 

2910/2875 

2019-20/2018-19 

Male 
Female 

African-American 

Hispanic 

White 

Two or more races/ethnicities 
Economically Disadvantaged 

Students with Disabilities 

ELL%) 

Schools of Choice (Y/N) 
Resident Pupils Leaving 
Non-Res Pupils Attending 

Total Teacher Count 

Teacher Rating Highly Effective 

or Effective 

Teacher Rating Minimally Effective 

or Ineffective 

50.0% 
50.0% 
11.0% 
14.0% 
62.5% 
11.%% 
44.5% 
12.5% 
4.5% 
Yes 
620 
1330 
330 

 

99.0% 

 

1.0% 

50.0% 
50.0% 
6.5% 
8.5% 
83.%% 
0.5% 
45.0% 
9.5% 
2.5% 
Yes 
275 
1415 
165 

 

98.0% 

 

2.0% 

2018-19 
2018-19 
2018-19 
2018-19 
2018-19 
2018-19 
2019-20 
2018-19 
2018-19 
2019-20 

2019 
2019 

2018-2019 

 

2018-19 

 

2018-19 

Note: District names are pseudonyms, and some identifying data are rounded, omitted, combined, combined, or 
otherwise slightly altered from the source data to protect their anonymity. 
Source: Michigan Department of Education, MI School Data, https://www.mischooldata.org 
 

Table 4.2, a comparison of the participating high schools in terms of student 

demographics, shows that Woodford High School is larger and more racially/ethnically diverse 

than Walker High School. Walker, however, posts somewhat better measures of student 

achievement. 

 

 

 

 

82 

Table 4.2 Comparison of Participating High School Student Demographics 

      

High School Student Data 
Total Student Enrollment 

Male 
Female 
Asian 

African-American 

Hispanic 

White 

Two or More Race/Ethnicities 
Economically Disadvantaged 

Special Education 

English Language Learner 

Proficiency on Grade 11 M-Step, all subjects 

SAT Total Score 

SAT College & Career Readiness Benchmarks 

4-Yr Graduation Rate 

Drop-Out Rate 

    

Woodford HS  Walker HS 

1700 
52.0 % 
48.0 
3.5% 
11.0% 
13.0% 
62.5 % 
9.0% 
35.0% 
11.5%) 
3.5% 
23.0% 
1000 
33.0% 
87.0% 
<5% 

900 
49.5% 
50.5% 
1.5% 
5.5% 
8.5% 
83.0% 

0% 

36.5% 
9.0% 
1.5% 
35.0% 
1045 
41.0% 
>95% 
<5% 

Note: All data is from the 2018-19 school year, except for M-Step proficiency percentage, which repre- 
sents 2017-18 school year data; high school names are pseudonyms, and some identifying data are rounded, 
omitted, combined, combined, or otherwise slightly altered from the source data to protect their anonymity. 
Source: Michigan Department of Education, MI School Data, https://www.mischooldata.org 

With respect to the teaching staff demographics of the participating high schools, Table 

 

4.3 reveals a high degree of similarity in percentage terms. Further, but for some variance in the 

ratio of highly effective to effective, the distribution of teacher evaluation ratings is practically 

the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83 

Table 4.3 Participating High School Teaching Staff Demographics 
High School Staff Data 

Woodford HS  Walker HS 

Total Teaching Staff 

Male 
Female 
White 

Tenured Teachers 

Non-Tenured Teachers 

Teachers with <1-5 years of experience 
Teachers with 6-15 years of experience 
Teachers with 16-25 years of experience  
Teachers with 26->30 years of experience 

Teacher Rating of Highly Effective 

or Effective 

Teacher Rating of Minimally Effective 

or Ineffective 

100 
41.0% 
59.0% 
>99.0% 
70.0% 
30.0% 

30 
25 
34 
11 
 

100% 

 

0% 

40 

46.0% 
54.0% 
>91.0% 
71.5% 
28.5% 

13 
12 
13 
2 
 

100% 

 

0% 

Note: All data from 2019-20 school year, except for teacher performance rating data, which represents 
2018-19 data when Woodford HS had a teaching staff of 95, and Walker HS had a teaching staff of 47; 
high school names are pseudonyms, and some identifying school data are rounded, omitted, combined, 
or otherwise slightly altered from the source data to protect their anonymity. 
Source: Michigan Department of Education, MI School Data, https://www.mischooldata.org 
 
 

As explained above, I was able to secure participation by one grade-level/content focus 

PLC, ELA 11, in the Woodford district/high school, consisting of three fully participating focus 

teacher-members (as well as two observation only teacher-members). By contrast, in the Walker 

district/high school, I successfully recruited two grade-level/content focus PLCs—namely, ELA 

10 and Math 10—each of which had three fully participating focus teachers-members. For the 

three total focus PLCs with nine total focus teacher-members, Table 4.4 provides comparative 

background information from their respective questionnaires: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84 

 

Table 4.4 Participating Focus Teacher-PLC Member Information 
Yrs 
Tch'g 

Tenure 

HiDgr 

Gndr 

Age 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HS 

PLC 

Name 

R/ 
Eth 
F 
Ms. Dalmore*  Woodford  ELA 11  W 
F 
Ms. Laphroaig  Woodford  ELA 11  W 
F 
Ms. Macallen  Woodford  ELA 11  W 
Walker  Math 10  W 
Ms. Daniels 
F 
Walker  Math 10  W  M 
Mr. Bulliet 
Walker  Math 10  W  M 
Mr. Roses 
F 
Ms. Trace 
Walker 
Ms. Williams  Walker 
F 
F 
Ms. Forester  Walker 

ELA 10  W 
ELA 10  W 
ELA 10  W 

43  MA 
38 
BA 
42  MA 
BA 
26 
24 
BA 
39 
BA 
40  MA 
46 
BA 
40  MA 

Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 

21 
7 
20 
4 
2 
13 
15 
14 
17 

Yrs 
Dist 
21 
5 
20 
4 
2 
7 
15 
3 
17 

Yrs 
HS 
21 
5 
20 
4 
2 
7 
15 
3 
17 

Note: Teacher and high school names are pseudonyms.  
*Ms. Dalmore is the ELA department chair, who has additional district and school teacher leader responsibilities,   
  including with respect to departmental PLCs.  
Source: Focus teacher questionnaires. 

Finally, three administrators from each district were interview participants. Table 4.5 

 

gives their names (for purposes of this study), position title, and years of experience in that 

position and in the district.  

Table 4.5 Participating Administrator Information 

District/HS 
Woodford 
Woodford 
Woodford 

Walker 
Walker 
Walker 

Administrator 
Ms. Lauder 
Mr. Regal 
Dr. Sark 
Mr. Mark 
Mr. Creek 
Mr. Craig 

Position 

Yrs Position  Yrs District 

Secondary Curriculum Director 

High School Principal 

High School Assistant Principal 

Assistant Superintendent 
High School Principal 

High School Assistant Principal 

4 
7 
3 
2 
7 
4 

17 
7 
3 
8 
20 
23 

      Note: Administrator and high school names are pseudonyms.  
      Source: Participant interviews. 

 

I summarize the organizational positions and relationships among the participants in 

Figure 4.1, which also reflects the multiple case study with embedded units design of this 

dissertation. 

 

 

 

85 

Figure 4.1 Embedded Multiple Case Study Units and Focus Teacher Participants 

 

 
        Walker Public School District 
          Ms. Lauder, Secondary Ed Director                          Mr. Mark, Assistant Superintendent 

Woodford Public Schools 

 

 

Woodford High School 

Mr. Regal, Principal  
Dr. Sark, Asst Principal 

 

 

ELA 11 PLC 

 Teacher . 

Laphr 
oaig 

 

Teacher 
Macal-
len. 

 
  Teacher . 
Dalmore 

   

 

Walker High School 
Mr. Creek, Principal 

Mr. Craig, Asst Principal 

 

Math 10 PLC 

Teacher 
Daniels 

Teacher 
Bulliet 

Teacher  
Roses 

 

 

ELA 10 PLC 

Teacher  
Trace 

 

Teacher 
Williams 

Teacher  
Forester 

Note: All names are pseudonyms. 
Source: Adapted from Yin, 2014, p. 50, Figure 2.4. 

 
Data Collection 

Baxter and Jack (2008, p. 554) call the use of multiple data sources “[a] hallmark of case 

study research,” an accurate characterization for several reasons (see Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 

2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Patton, 2015; Yin, 2014). First of all, multiple sources are necessary to 

the development of an in-depth understanding of the cases requires multiple sources. Such 

diverse sources provide information about different aspects of the cases, helping to ensure that 

the phenomena of interest are studied through a variety of lenses or perspectives (e.g., Miles, et 

al., 2014). Second, the convergence of evidence derived from range of data collection forms and 

means strengthens case study understandings, explanations, and findings (Baxter and Jack, 2008; 

Maxwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Multiple sources and methods greatly improve 

the opportunities for identifying and developing what Erickson (1986) calls “key linkages” 

 

86 

among data sources, together with what have also been described as “propositions” (Yin, 2014) 

and “analytic generalizations” (Firestone, 1993). Third, the use of multiple sources not only 

increases the credibility of collected data (Baxter and Jack, 2008), but this strategy also is 

essential to triangulation that establishes the validity of research findings (Cresswell, 2013; 

Miles, et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). 

The data on which case studies frequently rely are sourced in various forms of interviews 

and observations, together with documents, archival records and physical artifacts (Yin, 2014). 

Pursuant to my case study design, data sources for this dissertation were several: (1) focus 

teacher questionnaires, (2) videotaped and field-noted/memoed observations of focus PLC 

meetings, (3) recorded and noted/memoed in-person or phone interviews of focus teachers and 

participating administrators, and (4) contemporary document reviews. These types of data were 

the best fit to address my research questions, and the same types of data sources have been used 

by qualitative researchers investigating teacher responses to and engagement with formalized 

PLC and evaluation (e.g., Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn, et al., 2017; Rigby, 2014; Valli and 

Buese, 2007). Although qualitative research scholars are not entirely consistent in the category 

labels for data collection sources, all agree that researchers commonly, appropriately and 

effectively rely upon the kinds of data I collected here (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2013; 

Erickson, 1986; Patton, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Yin, 2014).  

 

Focus Teacher Questionnaires. Each teacher completed a questionnaire shortly after 

data collection began at each high school research site—i.e., late September, 2019 in Woodford 

and late October in Walker (copy of the questionnaire attached as Appendix A). Each part of the 

two-part questionnaire served a different purpose. The first part aimed to learn the focus 

teachers’ overall views on the goals of, influences on, and the relationship between their 

 

87 

experiences of PLC and evaluation. I then used each teacher’s answers, plus patterns in the 

answers among focus PLC members, to inform interview questions and observed expressions. In 

addition, by comparing questionnaire responses with interview answers and observed PLC work, 

the questionnaire played a significant role with other data sources in the data triangulation 

conducted during data analysis. The second part of the questionnaire collected background data 

on each focus teacher. Such data included basic demographic information, together with 

somewhat more specific information regarding each respondent’s education, experience, and 

assignment.   

 

Focus Teacher and Administrator Interviews. I twice interviewed each focus teacher 

at each case high school between October 15, 2019 and March 9, 2020. These interviews 

included all three fully participating teachers constituting the ELA 11 PLC at Woodford High 

School, and all six teachers, in two trios, constituting the Math 10 PLC and the ELA 10 PLC at 

Walker High School. All interviews were semi-structured in form, following one protocol for the 

first interview (Appendix B) and a separate protocol for the second interview (Appendix C), and 

all were conducted in one-on-one settings in person or by telephone. All interviews were audio 

recorded; in addition, I took notes for the duration of each interview, and I wrote memos with a 

more holistic, impressionistic assessment and main point summary of each interview as soon as 

practicable thereafter. The date, mode and duration of each interview for each focus teacher are 

given in Tables 4.6 and 4.7.  

 

Focus Teacher 

 

PLC 

 

Mode 

Interview 
#1 Date 
Ms. Dalmore*  ELA 11  10.15.19 
Ms. Laphroaig  ELA 11  10.09.19 
Ms. Macallen  ELA 11  10.22.19 

Table 4.6 Woodford Focus Teacher Interviews 
Interview 
#2 Date 
01.28.20 
01.29.20 
01.28.20 

Duration 
(minutes) 

Phone 
Phone 

57 
46 
44 

In person 

 

Mode 

Duration 
(minutes) 

In person 

Phone 
Phone 

56 
37 
34 

   *Ms. Dalmore is the ELA department head, who has additional district and school teacher leader responsibilities,   

            including with respect to departmental PLCs. 

 

88 

Table 4.7 Walker Focus Teacher Interviews 

 

Name 

 

PLC 

Ms. Daniels  Math 10 
Mr. Bulliet  Math 10 
Mr. Roses  Math 10 
Ms. Trace 
ELA 10 
Ms. Williams  ELA 10 
ELA 10 
Ms. Forester 

Interview 
#1 Date 
12.04.19 
12.12.19 
12.19.19 
12.12.19 
12.18.19 
12.18.19 

 

Mode 

Duration 
(minutes) 

In person 

Phone 
Phone 
Phone 

In person 
In person 

31 
39 
50 
40 
42 
31 

Interview 
#2 Date 
02.27.20  Phone 
02.18.20  Phone 
03.09.20  Phone 
02.25.20  Phone 
02.25.20  Phone 
02.25.20  Phone 

 

Mode  Duration 
(minutes) 

29 

27-30* 

29 
24 
18 
15 

             * Due to Zoom user/researcher error, only the last 15.25 minutes audio recorded; there are researcher notes  
                for the entire time. 
 

Woodford ran a traditional two semester calendar for the school year. Thus, the 

interviews of the Woodford teachers occurred roughly around the middle of the first semester, 

with the second interviews occurring shortly after the beginning of the second semester. Walker, 

by contrast, used a trimester system, where the student composition of all classes changes each 

trimester, even as the curriculum of non-elective classes like Math 10 and ELA 10 proceed for 

the full school year. Walker teacher interviews took place within the first few weeks of the 

second trimester, and second interviews were completed withing the last few weeks of that 

trimester.  

Despite the differing calendars, the objective in both schools was to conduct the initial 

interviews once the school year was sufficiently under way that routines had been established 

and both the regular evaluation and PLC systems were operating in the ordinary course. Thus, 

first interviews concerned focus teachers’ recent and ongoing experiences with, perceptions of, 

and participation in evaluation and PLC (see Appendix B). First interviews also enquired into the 

influences on and of evaluation and PLC, including how the two related to each other and to 

teachers’ engagement with both.  

The objective of the second interviews was to allow enough time to pass since the first, as 

well as into the school year overall, such that teachers both could reflect on how evaluation and 

 

89 

PLC work had progressed (or not) through much of the year and would be able to anticipate the 

likely course of evaluation and PLC to the end of the year. Second interviews accordingly asked 

focus teachers to assess the year so far, including how their experiences, perceptions, 

participations around evaluation and PLC had developed or changed since the first interview and 

how the same compared to their expectations going into the year (see Appendix C). Second 

interviews further concerned focus teachers’ awareness of or action regarding connections 

between evaluation and PLC, as well as their expectations for both during the balance of the 

year.  

Finally, together with any clarifying question related to the first interviews, PLC 

observations, or documents, second interviews addressed a newly salient issue that had arisen, at 

Woodford concerning PLCs and at Walker concerning evaluation. In addition to sub-

departmental grade-level/content PLCs, Woodford had also separately formed, tasked, and 

scheduled time for “collaboration time PLCs.” These were organized by instructional domain 

(e.g., student feedback, formative assessment); teachers pick one to join, which results in much 

larger, cross-disciplinary groups. Because this kind of PLC came up in several first interviews 

(including administrator interviews), I asked about them in focus teachers’ second interviews for 

purposes of comparison with the focus PLC. Walker’s central administration notified principals 

in December before the holiday break that building administrators would for the first time be 

conducting “midyear review” meetings with their teaching staff. Mr. Creek and Walker High 

School duly notified his staff and created a written questionnaire for teacher completion as the 

basis for these individualized meetings. Focus teachers’ second interviews therefore included 

questions about this seeming change in the individual teacher performance evaluation structure.  

 

90 

I conducted one interview of three administrators in each district. In both Woodford and 

Walker, one interviewee was a central administrator with evaluation and PLC responsibilities, 

one was the high school principal, and one was an assistant high school principal. Like the focus 

teacher interviews, all administrator interviews were semi-structured following their own 

protocol (Appendices D and E). All occurred in one-on-one settings, and all were audio-

recorded, whether conducted in person or by phone. I took notes through the full duration of each 

interview, and I wrote a memo soon after each ended. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 present the relevant 

details of these interviews. 

Name 

Ms. Lauder 
Mr. Regal 
Dr. Sark 

Name 

Mr. Mark 
Mr. Creek 
Mr. Craig 

Table 4.8 Woodford Administrator Interviews 

Position 

Interview Date 

Mode 

Duration (minutes) 

Secondary Director 

HS Principal 

HS Asst Principal 

10.15.19 
11.27.19 
01.16.20 

In person 

Phone 
Phone 

29 
37 
34 

Table 4.9 Walker Administrator Interviews 
Mode 

Interview Date 

Duration (minutes) 

Position 
Asst Supt 

HS Principal 

HS Asst Principal 

01.22.20 
12.11.19 
12.11.19 

In person 
In person 
In person 

44 
43 
46 

The duties of the participating central administrator in Woodford, who was a high school 

 

 
 

teacher and instructional coach before assuming her present position, included secondary 

curricula, instruction and assessment, as well as supervisory authority over teacher evaluation 

and professional development, which included PLCs. The participating assistant superintendent 

in Walker had a similar role with respect to teacher evaluation, and he worked with building 

principals on PLCs; he also was responsible for district data collection and provision, including 

that necessary to evaluation and professional development. Thus, the relevant interview protocol 

(Appendix E) mainly focused on the structures of evaluation and PLC, including how the district 

 

91 

had adopted and implemented evaluation and PLC, how both worked and the challenges each 

presented, and the leadership and support provided by district. These interviews also addressed 

any connections or interactions between evaluation and PLC, as well as the administrators’ 

perceptions of the effects of both in the district’s high school. 

 

The principal and assistant principal were the only building administrators at Walker 

High School, so they jointly implemented the structures of PLC and evaluation. At Woodford, 

building administration included the principal and four assistant principals. The principal and the 

assistant principal who was interviewed, Dr. Sark, together conducted the majority of teacher 

evaluations; both were also involved in monitoring and supervising the PLCs, with Dr. Sark 

serving as the administrative liaison to (among others) the ELA department and its sub-

department grade-level/content PLCs. At both high schools, the purpose of the building 

administrator interviews (Appendix D) lay in understanding how evaluation and PLC were 

implemented at the school level. For example, interviewees were asked about how the two 

systems worked in practice, what the challenges of implementation were, and how teachers 

seemed to perceive evaluation and PLC. Additionally, building administrators were asked to 

identify and explain any connections between PLCs and evaluation, and to compare and contrast 

the effects of each in their high school. 

 

Observations of PLC Meetings. The opportunities for PLC observations differed within 

and between the two case high schools. Both Woodford and Walker organize their PLCs, and 

schedule PLC meetings, by disciplinary department. However, the principal departments at both 

schools (ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies) have sub-departmental PLCs based on grade-

level/content, the embedded units of study here. Both schools regularly schedule departmental 

 

92 

meetings; but because departmental tasks or activities must be completed first, there is no fixed 

or consistent amount of time for grade-level/content PLC to work.  

Further variance in observational opportunities arise from how each school schedules 

PLC time. At the secondary level, Woodford had a late start (no students) period practically 

every Wednesday during the semester. However, the district calendar allotted this time to several 

kinds of professional learning—whole building initiatives, cross-disciplinary “collaborative 

time” teacher teams (noted above), “content time” (departmental) PLCs, cross-school teacher 

meetings. As a result, the sub-departmental grade-level/content PLCs only met about four times 

a semester. In Walker, time for departmental/PLC meetings was obtained by running a modified 

schedule every Wednesday, although departments only met every other Wednesday, since a 

Response to Intervention (RTI) program occupies the time during alternate Wednesdays. Walker 

had also converted some after-school staff meetings to departmental/PLC time. 

 

It was in these contexts that, between late September 2019 and late January 2020, I 

observed the Woodford ELA 11 PLC on four occasions for a total of slightly more than 160 

minutes. At Walker High School between late October, 2019 and mid-February, 2020, I 

observed the ELA 10 PLC three times totaling about 200 minutes and the Math 10 PLC five 

times for a total of nearly 160 minutes. For all PLC observations, I sat apart from the group that 

was meeting while videotaping the meeting using my smart phone with a specialized application 

interfacing with a flash drive for video file recording and storage. In addition to the video 

recording, I made field notes for the full duration of each observation. After each observation, I 

wrote a memo which included more holistic impressions and reflections, as well as salient points 

for later consideration or follow-up.   

Table 4.10 details the observed meetings of the Woodford ELA 11 PLC. 

 

93 

 Figure 4.10 Woodford ELA 11 PLC Observations 

Absent 

Duration 
(minutes) 

32*** 

Date 

 

Present 

09.25.19 

Dalmore, Laphroaig,  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 * NFPT A/B = there were two “not fully participating teachers,” who were members of the PLC 

Dalmore, Laphroaig, Macallen, 

Dalmore, Laphroaig, Macallen, 

Dalmore, Laphroaig, Macallen, 

NFPT A/B (B 
w/ELA 10) 

NFPT A/B, 2 interns 

A/B* (B w/ELA 10) 

NFPT A, 2 interns 

Macallen, NFPT 

2 interns** 

 
64 

 

 
28 

 
38 

2 interns 

10.30.19 

01.08.20 

01.22.19 

None 

NFPT B 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       but consented only to observations, not interviews or questionnaires. 

                                 **Pre-service interns = two of the focus teachers, Dalmore and Macallen, and one of the NFPTs 
        had pre-service interns who sometimes attended the PLC meetings; with the approval of their 
        mentor teachers; all three consented to observations. 

                                    ***Approximately 6 of the last 8 minutes of this meeting not video recording due to video mal- 
                                       function; field notes were taken for entire meeting time. 
 

It is significant that, of the four PLC meetings scheduled for the first semester, the last three were 

observed (the first occurred before students started), together with the first meeting of the second 

semester. Furthermore, with one exception, the three focus teacher-members attended the 

meetings for their full durations. “Not Fully Participating Teacher A” (NFPT A), who I 

understand had health issues, only attended two of four meetings, and NFPT B only one of four, 

in part because her primary PLC was the ELA 10 grade-level/content group. At all meetings the 

three focus teachers were the most active participants. Ms. Macallen’s and NFPT A’s interns 

attended all meetings, with the latter especially participating in the discussions. Finally of note 

for data collection purposes, there was one video glitch during the third meeting. 

Tables 4.11 and 4.12 provide information like Table 4.10 with respect to the Walker 

PLCs, ELA 10 and Math 10. 

     Table 4.11 Walker ELA 10 PLC Observations 

Date 

10.30.19 
11.20.19 
01.22.20 
02.19.20 

Present 

Trace, Williams 

Trace, Williams, Forester 

Trace, Williams 
Trace, Williams 

Absent 

Forester** 
None*** 
Forester 
Forester 

Duration (minutes) 

n/a* 
84^ 
69^ 
46^ 

*All PLC time used for departmental business; no grade-level/content PLC meeting time. 

94 

 

 

 

 

 **Forester’s primary PLC based upon her assignment was in the science department. 
 ***Forester was present for about 60 of the 84 minutes of this meeting. 

      ^Meeting after school voluntarily extended beyond scheduled PLC time period. 

 

     Table 4.12 Walker Math 10 PLC Observations 

Date 

11.13.19 
12.04.19 
12.11.19 
01.16.20 
01.20.20 
02.05.20 
02.06.20 

Present 

Bulliet, Roses 

Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 
Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 
Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 
Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 
Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 
Bulliet, Roses, Daniels 

Absent 
Daniels 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 

Durations (minutes) 

21 
n/a* 
n/a* 
25*** 
75** 
11 

25*** 

*All PLC time used for departmental business; no grade-level/content PLC meeting time. 
** This PLC meeting occurred as a part of a full day of professional development. Although 
     the meeting was videoed, a video application malfunction at the end resulted in the loss 
     file; field notes were taken for entire meeting time. 
***Voluntary Math 10 PLC meetings during focus teacher-members’ common lunch period. 

 

Note that, on the one hand, both of the Walker grade-level/content PLCs “lost” meeting time 

when their respective departmental meetings took all or most of the entire available meeting 

time. On the other hand, both made up time through voluntary meetings during a common lunch 

period (Math 10) or after the regular school day (ELA 10). Finally, both of these PLCs had a 

maximum of three focus teachers. Because Ms. Forester was assigned more Science than ELA 

classes, she usually went to the Science Departmental/Biology PLC meetings. As a consequence, 

she attended only one of the observed ELA 10 PLC meetings. The Math 10 PLC meetings were 

the reverse. Although she attended the Algebra PLC meeting at the end of the November 13, 

2019 Math Department time, thereafter Ms. Daniels and the other Math10 focus teacher-

members attended all observed meetings. During the longest of those, an unexplained technical 

failure in video application software resulted in the loss of the entire video file of that meeting. 

Document Reviews. I reviewed the publicly available information about the districts and 

highs schools that was available online at their websites and though the state department of 

education. This provided extensive background data on district/school governance, finance, 

 

95 

students, staffing, accountability measures, and other basic information. More specifically, 

online postings identified and gave access to documentation of and documents used in the 

evaluation system in each district/school, regarding, for example, the Marzano evaluation tool 

used in Woodford and the Danielson tool used in Walker. For the 2019-20 school year, Walker 

published and distributed an “Evaluation Handbook” to all teachers and administrators, which 

included documents explaining and forms to be used in teacher evaluation. Supplemental and 

explanatory information about the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model adopted in 

Woodford and the Danielson Framework for Teaching adopted in Walker were also available 

from the state MDE or the district. Each focus PLC and several focus teachers individually 

provided access to documents showing its work in recently past and the current school year. 

These documents comprised PLC products such as (1) common curriculum standards and related 

common assessments, (2) rubrics and student learning progressions or objectives, (3) “course 

packs” and descriptions, and (4) lesson planning and materials. Particular PLCs made available 

documentary evidence regarding meeting formats, agendas, task and activities.  

Data Analysis           

 

Well-conducted, effective data collection and ongoing analysis leading to robust, highly 

trustworthy findings starts with a “researcher-as-instrument” who possesses characteristics like a 

solid familiarity with their study’s phenomenon and setting of interest, and good investigative 

skills applied with an attention to detail and appropriate dispositions toward participants (Miles, 

et al., 2015, p. 42). Indeed, Yin directly addresses one of his principles of high-quality analysis to 

the researcher: “you should use your prior, expert knowledge in your case study” (2014, p. 168; 

emphasis in original).  Before entering my doctoral program, I taught high school social studies 

for 16 years in a large K-12 school district in southeastern Michigan. During my tenure, I also 

 

96 

served in a number of teacher leadership positions and as an instructional coach. In the mid-

2000s, I was part of the high school group that went through DuFour PLC training and 

implemented that PLC model first in our school; later it was adopted throughout the district. I 

was a teacher-member of Michigan Teacher Tenure Commission when the state began its teacher 

evaluation reforms, and I was subject to the state-mandated system for the last two years of my 

employment. While in my doctoral program, my research coursework, research assistant 

assignments, and practicum all included substantial elements of and experience with qualitative 

research. 

 

Beyond prior knowledge and experience, the researcher conducting qualitative analysis 

proper should first aim to thoroughly know their data by reviewing it repeatedly, while also 

writing annotations, notes and memos (Bazeley, 2013; Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2013). 

Maxwell emphasizes that although memos serve many functions, they are “an essential 

technique for qualitative analysis [references omitted]” (2013, p. 105; see Miles, et al., 2014). As 

discussed in the data collection section above, I collected and wrote about the early data in the 

focus teacher questionnaires. Although interview and observation data were recorded, I made 

fieldnotes during each, and after each interview and observation I wrote a summary memo. I 

recorded the memos in a research journal, where I also wrote reflections, notes and “jottings” 

(Miles, et al., 2015), as well as, later, other kinds of process and analytical memos (Bazeley, 

2013; Silver and Lewins, 2014). Further, after each interview and observation, I reviewed the 

audio/video recording, any documents obtained at the time, and my accompanying field notes, 

the last of which I annotated based on the first two. 

As I completed a set of observations for each focus PLC and/or received relevant 

documents from each PLC’s focus teachers, I re-watched their observational videos and 

 

97 

reviewed the documents. I took notes and made memos on the content and potential significance 

of both, among other research journal reflections on them. The video review process included 

noting the time range and content of potential excerpts for illustrative, corroborative and 

triangulation purposes. I marked and annotated copies of the documents for the same purposes. 

I used Trint, a commercial online automated transcription service, to make a first draft of 

each interview transcript, which I reviewed for likely errors in content and formatting. I then 

again listened to the audio recording of each interview as I corrected each transcript. I reviewed 

and annotated each corrected transcript, and I also memoed and jotted in my research journal.   

During the later rounds of review of all forms of collected data, I began to apply what 

Bernard, Wutich, and Ryan (2017, pp. 162-163) call a “constant validity check”—i.e., with 

intention, watching for disagreements among participants and checking participants’ accuracy, 

attending to negative evidence and looking for alternative explanations, and examining one’s 

theory to try and fit disconfirming evidence in (2017, pp. 162-163; see Miles, et al., 2014). In 

addition to negative or disconfirming evidence, I attended to what was not said and who did not 

participate (Guest, MacQueen, and Namely, 2014). 

I coded and analyzed all interview transcripts using Dedoose (Salmona, Lieber, and 

Kaczynski, 2020; see Silver and Lewins, 2014). I first prepared and imported district, high 

school, PLC, and teacher descriptor sets, along with the fields each encompassed. I uploaded as 

well the interview transcripts for coded excerpting and the observational videos for illustrative 

excerpting. Next, I began my first cycle descriptive coding (Miles, et al., 2015) using a priori 

“structural codes” (Guest, et al., 2014), a.k.a. “organizational categories” or “topics” (Maxwell, 

2013), which were developed primarily from the interview protocols and surveys. These initial 

codes also constituted the first iteration of my codebook. One round consisted of coding for 

 

98 

“evaluation,” “PLC,” and “relationships/inter-relationships”; the second, “teacher participation” 

and “administrative implementation.” These codes represented the cross-cutting distinctions 

between and identifications of evaluation versus PLC structures and teacher responses, plus 

relationships and interactions (or their absence) among structures and responses. During the first 

cycle process, In Dedoose, I wrote memos and tagged data, “jotted,” and noted potential child 

codes to reflect emerging themes within each topic and patterns across several topics (Bazeley, 

2013; Silver and Lewins, 2014; Salmona, et al., 2020). 

Referencing Stake (2006), Patton (2015, p. 536) points out that, in contemporary 

research, qualitative analysis is significantly directed toward “[a]nalyzing patterns and 

identifying themes across multiple case studies” (see Miles, et al., 2014). I accordingly 

proceeded with second cycle or pattern coding (Bazeley, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Patton, 2015). 

Having initially established initial parent codes categorizing the interview data, I recoded each 

code’s group of excerpts to address any discrepancies between parent codes and to identify 

emerging themes and thematic patterns from which to develop sub-categories or child codes 

(Maxwell, 2013). I was at the same time expanding my codebook while refining particular code 

descriptions and relationships. For example, under the parent codes of evaluation structure-

implementation and PLC structure-implementation, it became apparent that the implementation 

of both varied by the roles played by central administration versus building administration. 

Hence I added two child codes—“district administrative implementation,” “school administrative 

implementation”—under each parent. In a similar way, the excerpts under the parent code of 

“PLC participation” supported distinct themes/child codes such as “PLC participation purpose” 

and “PLC participation value.” I conducted a final round of coding, not only to review the 

prospective child codes for specificity and consistency, but to surface any significant facets of 

 

99 

them that as sub-themes of grandchild codes represent more focused points, often in participants’ 

own wording (Miles, et al., 2014). For example, the child code “PLC participation work” 

encompassed data distinguishing between administration-driven and teacher-driven work. 

I used the Dedoose “Chart Selector” functionality (Salmona, et al., 2020) to conduct 

horizontal and vertical code frequency analyses. I also conducted a coverage analysis by 

comparing sets of coded excerpts (Silver and Lewins, 2014). All frequency analyses were 

applied to and across groupings of individual participants, PLCs and high schools. I examined 

and compared code frequency totals, distributions, and patterns—whether expected or not, 

whether expected but absent—to assess the scope, significance, and utility of each child and 

related grandchild codes. In addition, I sought a high degree of fit or congruence among applied 

codes, emergent themes, and the supporting data by reviewing and comparing code descriptions 

together with and the coverage and content of coded excerpt sets. As a result of these analyses, I 

flattened and simplified the coding scheme and resolved any discrepancies when I merged 

several grandchild codes, and eliminated the “PLC participation” and “evaluation participation” 

parent codes (Bazeley, 2013; Silver and Lewins, 2014). I then revised the remaining code 

descriptions and recoded affected excerpts. The upshot was a codebook comprised of eleven 

parent codes—five PLC parents, five evaluation parents and one parent for relationships/inter-

relationships. Each parent code had only two or three child codes (see Appendix F). 

To assess and improve the reliability of my coding scheme and process, I used the inter-

rater reliability (IRR) “Training Center” in Dedoose (Samona, et al., 2020). I created two tests, 

one for the parent evaluation codes and one for the parent PLC codes; both tests included the 

most important parent code—PLC/Evaluation Relationships and Inter-Relationships (Appendix 

F). The evaluation code test had 53 excerpts, the PLC code test 51; in both tests the excerpts 

 

100 

were not selected in any particular order, but were distributed approximately equally across the 

relevant codes and all interview transcripts. I did not review any of the entire excerpts when I 

selected them for the tests. The total of 104 excerpts represented slightly more than 10% of the 

total number of all excerpts (1006). I would take each test once, analyze the results to implement 

corrections and improvements, and then take each a second time (see Baxter and Jack, 2008). 

I aimed first to experience how the testing functionality worked, mitigate the chance of 

memory bias, and gauge the intuitive precision of the codes, revealing the more patent code 

discrepancies. I thus piloted the evaluation and PLC tests “cold”—i.e., without any preparation, 

including any review of any excerpt source or larger context, or any review of the code 

definitions—on separate days after the creation of each. The resulting pooled Cohen's Kappa 

statistics were in the "good agreement" (evaluation parent codes) and "fair agreement" (PLC 

parent codes) ranges. The overall result in each test was most adversely affected by a 

significantly lower score with respect to one code (not relationships/inter-relationships).  

I began analyzing the discrepancies at the lowest sub-score—i.e., with the code with the 

largest number of “disagreements” and so the lowest Cohen’s Kappa statistic. I reviewed each 

excerpt in context of the broader interview and the identity of the interviewee (neither of which 

the test when taken shows). With such addition information, I then compared the excerpt to the 

two “disagreeing” codes’ definitions. I discovered several silly mistakes resulting from how I 

first took the tests, as well as two excerpts that should not have been included in the tests to 

begin with—namely, a double-coded excerpt and an un-coded excerpt. More substantively, some 

disagreements could be resolved given the excerpt’s larger context, others through refining the 

code description, and still others by both. Some resolutions required recoding; and whenever I 

modified a code description, I rechecked all the excerpts with the described code, recoding if 

 

101 

necessary. I iterated the process to examine and resolve all coding disagreements and to review 

and clarify the related excerpts, excerpt contexts, and coding descriptions. 

In light of what I had learned about the testing process, and given the remedial steps 

taken, I retook each test after waiting a number of hours (the next day in one case). The resulting 

pooled Cohen's Kappa for the evaluation parent codes test was 0.98, and for the PLC parent 

codes test was 0.95, both being within the “excellent agreement” range. (Each test statistic may 

somewhat overstate overall agreement due to the inadvertent errors in test construction 

mentioned above.) In addition, the Cohen’s Kappa for each code in the first test was in one 

instance at most 0.07 of the others; and in the second test, the maximum between any two codes 

was 0.09, again in only one instance. The codebook and coded excerpts were ready for the 

application of more formalized analytical processing. 

I employed the analytical tools in Dedoose in two inter-related ways (generally, Samona, 

et al., 2020). I used them, first, to identify and analyze themes and patterns in the data, as well as 

existing or missing relationships among the data (Bazeley, 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 

2014). These uses included an array of within and between case comparisons (Bazeley, 2013; 

Miles, et al., 2014; Patton, 2015; Yin, 2014). Second, Dedoose enabled me, in effect, to test 

tentative, alternative thematic interpretations, inferences, and propositions against what the data 

showed (Bazeley, 2013; Silver and Lewins, 2014; see Erickson, 1986; Maxwell, 2013). This 

testing process included a version of the analytic technique Yin describes as “explanation 

building” (2014, pp. 147-150; see Bazeley, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014). I applied, for example, 

filters for unit level (high school, PLC, individual participants) and codes to create sets of 

“Descriptor Fields x Codes Grid” charts to compare, say, the focus PLCs by predominance of 

district versus school PLC implementation, and administration versus teacher determined PLC 

 

102 

work. I would then make a set of such charts by individual focus teacher to see if a particular 

focus PLC member inordinately affected the PLC results. Again, at the PLC and focus teacher 

levels and filtering codes, I made several sets of “Code Frequency Descriptor Bubble Plot” 

charts to see, for instance, how relationship/inter-relationship codes varied among focus teachers 

by the relationship between school and district evaluation implementation. As a final example, I 

also ran a range of “Code Co-Occurrence” charts, which was telling for what they showed—and 

did not show—about the relationships by PLC, administrator, and focus teacher among the 

relationships/inter-relationships child codes and the PLC or evaluation purpose and value codes 

(Samona, et al., 2020; Silver and Lewins, 2014).  

Analytical techniques “represent ways of linking data to propositions[.]” (Yin, 2014, p. 

36; emphasis in original). In addition to the analytical moves summarized above, I further 

developed my thematic propositions, while addressing disconfirming evidence and potential 

alternatives, through several other steps calculated to establish and weigh the “key linkages” by 

which the data in its various forms and contexts supported the emerging assertions (Erickson, 

1986; see Bazeley, 2013). These steps at the same time constituted a process of triangulation and 

corroboration among all data sources (Crestwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014). To these ends, I 

exported from Dedoose and printed sets of coded excerpts, which I reviewed, marked and 

annotated. I reviewed my Dedoose and research journal memos and other writings, distilling 

their ideas, insights and analysis into a consolidated set of notes for review, marking and 

annotating. I then compared the excerpts and notes to the other data—documents, questionnaires, 

and observations, together with, when appropriate, the interview transcripts. 

At the beginning of this section, I quoted one of Yin’s indicators of high-quality analysis 

(2014, p. 168), which this study satisfies. I have likewise sought to implement Yin’s other three 

 

103 

principles as I conducted my analysis—i.e., I endeavored to attend to all the evidence, deal with 

all plausible rival interpretations as far as possible, and address the most significant aspects of 

this study (2014, p. 168). The reporting of my findings, with explanation and evidence, in the 

chapters that follow reflect these efforts, which at the same time contribute to the validity of my 

results. 

Establishing Validity 

 

According the Maxwell, “validity” in the context of qualitative research refers to “the 

correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of 

account” (2013, p. 122). The overall validity of this dissertation can be established through the 

application of several layers of commonly accepted strategies to ensure the trustworthiness and 

authenticity of its research processes and findings (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2013; 

Glesne, 2016; Maxwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Rooted in key elements of the 

research design, these strategies undergird and reinforce study validity with high-quality 

implementation during participant recruitment, and data collection, analysis and reporting (e.g., 

Bazeley, 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014). In this study, these elements ranged from the 

fit among the research questions, conceptual framework, and case study design, to data collection 

from multiple cases and involving multiple kinds and sources of data, to the well-implemented 

means and procedures for data analysis. All such elements, described in detail above, were 

integrated to ensure the overall quality of this research and its results (Baxter and Jack, 2008).  

 

The design and execution of this study likewise addresses all three commonly 

distinguished types of validity—internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Miles, et al., 

2014; Yin, 2014). First, the internal validity of a case study largely concerns its inferences and 

explanations for the phenomenon of interest (Yin, 2014). As Maxwell (2014) points out, a 

 

104 

number of scholars have proposed checklists of internal validity strategies, not for verifying 

conclusions, but for testing them, together with threats to them (e.g., Miles, et al., 2014: Patton, 

2015). This study satisfies criteria Maxwell (2014, pp. 125-29) posits because it involved:  

  collecting rich data through, for example, multiple, electronically and manually recorded 

interviews and observations of an array of educators in their work contexts over months 

of the school year (see also Yin, 2014); 

  searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases, by, for example, repeatedly 

reviewing and writing about all data, and by systematically coding and comparing 

collected evidence (see also Cresswell, 2013; Patton, 2015); 

  engaging in triangulation over a broad range of data sources and collection methods (see 

also Cresswell, 2013; Miles, et al., 2014; Patton, 2015) 

  using numbers, derived from code frequency analyses, and to ascertain, aggregate and 

test the amount and variety of evidence supporting linkages or not (see also Guest, et al., 

2014); and, 

  making explicit comparisons, among, for example, individual and organizational 

participants at different levels, as well as making within and between case/embedded unit 

comparisons (see also Miles, et al., 2014; Patton, 2015). 

In addition, the findings of this study are supported the appropriateness and quality of its 

analytical techniques, such as explanation building and cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2014). 

 

In contrast to internal validity, external validity concerns the extent to which conclusions 

from particular research are generalizable beyond the immediate case study (Yin, 2014; see 

Miles, et al., 2014). Again, the present study’s design and conduct included a number of 

methodological elements that enhance its conclusions generalizability. It is, for example, a 

 

105 

multiple case study, the purposeful sampling strategy for which contemplated a form of 

replication logic that still allowed for adequate comparison between cases and among focus 

PLCs and focus teachers (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Firestone, 1993; Miles, et al., 2014). Further, 

the prospect for external validity is similarly improved by its “how”-based research questions 

seeking to understand potentially transferable processes (Maxwell, 2013; Yin 2014). This 

follows because case study generalizability often rests on “the development of a theory of the 

processes operating in the case studied, processes that may well operate in other cases, but that 

may produce different outcomes in different circumstances [references omitted]” (Maxwell, 

2013, p. 138; emphasis in original; see Firestone, 1993). The instant multiple case study seeks 

answers to research questions predicated on how teachers adapt their responses to the related 

structural demands of evaluation and PLC and on how those related structures shape those 

adaptive responses. This research thus required the investigation of interacting processes: teacher 

evaluation and PLC as implemented and teacher engagements in both. 

 

Finally, the question of reliability asks whether a future researcher conducting the same 

case study by following the original design and methodology would likely arrive at the same 

conclusions (Yin, 2014; see Miles, et al., 2014). Through several means, this study has important 

indicia boosting its reliability. There was (and is) a congruence among the research questions, 

design, and data collection and analysis, with appropriate intercoder agreement checks made 

with at least adequate results; data was collected over a complete array of relevant settings, times 

and participants, and multiple participants’ accounts converge when one would expect (Miles, et 

al., 2014; see Creswell, 2013). Data collection and analysis protocols were adhered to as well 

(Yin, 2014). 

 

106 

 

Whether considered holistically or as a sum of its component conceptual types, the 

validity of this study rests on multiple supports appropriate to its objectives, methodology, and 

findings.  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

107 

TEACHERS USE AGENTIC STRATEGIES TO ADAPT RESPONSES 

TO THE RELATED STRUCTURAL DEMANDS OF PLC AND EVALUATION 

CHAPTER 5 

  

This chapter and the next set forth the research findings of this dissertation, all of which 

are guided by its structure-agency framework and research questions. This chapter concerns the 

agency branch of the framework, as its findings answer the first research question: How, if at all, 

do teachers adapt their agentic responses to performance evaluation and professional learning 

community demands as they engage with the structures of both?  

The initial section below approaches the answer by describing the respective demands of 

evaluation and PLC at each school and in each district. I then identify the relationship found 

between teacher and PLC responses to those demands in the course of a school year as one of 

“punctuated compartmentalization.” I describe both the “what” of compartmentalization as 

teachers normally segregate responses and the “when” of opportunities for punctuation occur as 

teachers under certain circumstances may at interact responses. The second section shows how 

teachers punctuate the usual state of compartmentalization, how teachers take opportunities to 

adaptively interact their responses. Within and across the cases, I find that teachers enact 

punctuation when evaluation and PLC demands interact by drawing on several adaptive response 

strategies. This chapter’s final section presents findings about those teacher motivations and 

goals that result in the observed relationship of teacher responses. This section concerns the 

“why” of punctuated compartmentalization, which turns on teachers’ assessments of the purpose 

and value of their engagement with PLC vis a vis evaluation. 

“Punctuated Compartmentalization” of Teacher Responses to PLC and Evaluation Demands 

Woodford and Walker teachers must respond, first, to the structural demands of PLC as 

implemented by their respective administrations over the course of each school year. As Chapter 

6 discusses in depth, Woodford and Walker differ markedly in their PLC design and goal 

 

108 

orientations, which in turn shape the nature of teacher agency in response. Nevertheless, at both 

case sites, teacher agentic responses to PLC demands were manifested by how they participated 

in and contributed to their PLC’s collective work, including the completion of PLC tasks and 

creation of PLC products. 

For the 2019-2020 school year, as in the previous two, Woodford high school teachers 

belonged to two distinct kinds of PLCs, known as collaborative time and content time PLCs. The 

first kind were organized and tasked by instructional domain (e.g., student feedback, formative 

assessment). These corresponded to the Marzano instructional framework or model, which the 

district had adopted as the basis for its district-wide professional growth plan and teaching 

practice expectations. The district at the same time had selected a version of this framework, the 

Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model, as its state-approved evaluation tool. Teachers 

picked one collaborative time PLC to join for the school year, which by design resulted in much 

larger, cross-grade, cross-disciplinary groups. The second kind of PLC was organized by 

disciplinary department, but they were subdivided into grade-level/content PLCs, such as the 

ELA 11 PLC, the Woodford PLC here under study. These PLCs concerned themselves with 

assigned matters involving disciplinary/grade-level curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. At 

the beginning of each school year, the district set the schedule for all required PLC meetings and 

assigned each PLC certain work goals, tasks and products. The district-established calendar and 

assignments were implemented through building administration and department chairs. Central 

administrators periodically monitored PLC products, on which they gave feedback, which was 

used to prepare for the following year’s PLC work. 

Pursuant to the DuFour PLC model, which Walker high school had implemented as its 

own initiative several years prior to 2019-2020, teachers were organized into grade-level/content 

 

109 

PLCs, like the Math 10 and ELA 10 PLCs participating in this study. However, each regularly 

scheduled PLC time began with teachers meeting by department, where they engaged in required 

administrative tasks and regular DuFour video training before breaking into their grade-

level/content groups. The high school ran its own shortened class schedule each Wednesday, 

with the “extra” period during the student day alternately used for required departmental PLC 

meetings and Response to Intervention (RTI) student meeting time (another high school 

initiative). In addition, the high school principal created after-school meeting time by converting 

some monthly staff meetings to PLC time. Following the DuFour model, building administration 

largely allowed PLCs to develop and work in their own way and at their own pace, provided they 

met certain broad expectations for collective activities and work products. In 2019-2020, the 

district for the first time began to assign particular tasks to departmental PLCs.  

 

The Woodford and Walker PLCs responded to district and school structural PLC 

demands. They regularly met to continue work on the same sort of collective tasks and products 

over the school year. In contrast, evaluation demanded individualized teacher responses to state-

mandated, district- and school-implemented structures. As outlined in the policy context section 

of Chapter 3 above, the evaluation system requires that teachers (and administrators) perform 

disparate tasks generating a variety of products with idiosyncratic timelines varying with each 

school year. In both Woodford and Walker, evaluation demands constrained teacher agentic 

responses relatively more than PLC structures. Yet teachers could exercise agency in how they 

engaged with evaluation components, including the timing of their formal observations and 

collection of student growth data, how they prepared for and enacted their roles in meetings and 

when observed, and in their selection among lessons and assessments, as well as their creation of 

other artifacts. The very nature of PLC and evaluation as implemented at both case schools 

 

110 

meant that focus teachers’ agentic engagement with each could connect or otherwise relate 

responses to PLC and evaluation demands in some way and to some degree. I find that focus 

teachers actually did so, for the data reveal a strong, consistent relationship between focus 

teachers’ responses over the course of a school year.  

I call the overall relationship between focus teachers’ agentic responses to evaluation and 

PLC demands “punctuated compartmentalization.” As the phrase suggests, it consists in two 

alternative states. In the ordinary, day-to-day course, the more collective, regular and consistent 

demands of PLC were not usually relevant to the individualized, intermittent, and variable 

demands of evaluation. Teachers therefore kept their responses separate and independent. During 

the compartmentalized state, teachers addressed each immediate demand stimulus by directing a 

self-contained response only to whichever kind of demand confronted them at the particular 

point in time. A PLC revised a common assessment or lesson activity, for example, when a 

regularly scheduled PLC meeting took place. When a teacher received an email with feedback 

from an informal observation, they sent a response addressing any questions or concerns. 

Significantly, however, teachers sometimes punctuated or temporarily interrupted the usual 

status quo when they accepted particular opportunities to interact their responses by adapting 

their response to one kind of demand for use or application in their response to the other. As 

discussed below, punctuated compartmentalization obtained across all the focus PLCs and focus 

teachers, though with variation in the opportunities for punctuation and the types of adaptation.  

 

“Compartmentalization” characterizes the default or baseline state of the relationship 

between focus teachers’ responses to the demands of PLC and evaluation. The interview data 

were unambiguous here. Ms. Daniels, a Walker focus teacher, initially characterized the 

 

111 

evaluation process and the work of her Math 10 PLC as “separate,” but she then elaborated 

saying: 

 

 

They do seem kind of compartmentalized. In one way, your 
PLC, we’re looking at our students, what can we do to get all 
[Math 10] students to succeed? And then the other way, an  
evaluation is very individualized. It’s just, what does my teach- 
ing look like in my classroom? What’s my individual impact on 
the school? So I do think they are a bit compartmentalized. 

 
In Woodford, Ms. Dalmore, similarly characterized evaluation as “its own silo for the most part.” 

When in a later interview Ms. Dalmore was asked whether evaluation “had any effect on how 

you participate in departmental or grade-level PLC time, what you do with your work or how 

you look at your work there,” she responded, “Honestly, no. I mean, I would be doing everything 

that I’m doing regardless of whether evaluation was attached to it or not.” This conclusion was 

echoed by focus teachers in the Walker PLCs. Ms. Williams and Ms. Trace (ELA 10) and Ms. 

Daniels and Mr. Roses (Math 10) explained that their respective PLCs did the same work in the 

same way regardless of evaluation. Focus teachers at both case schools implicitly expressed a 

compartmentalization perspective when they said that they experienced little or no direct effect 

or influence of one on the other in preparing or making responses (Ms. Laphroaig, Mr. Roses, 

Mr. Bulliet, Ms. Williams, Ms. Trace), and/or that the evaluation process was mostly unrelated 

or unconnected to PLC work (Ms. Macallen, Mr. Bulliet, Ms. Williams, Ms. Trace, Ms. 

Forester). 

 

In addition to generally seeing their PLC and evaluation as largely separate responses to 

separate demands in timing, content and nature, the same sort of relationship emerged from other 

patterns in the interview data. Teachers in each focus PLC described how their evaluation 

responses tended to be narrowly focused in time and content whenever a specific evaluation 

 

112 

demand was imminent. Ms. Dalmore, referring to her colleagues at Woodford more broadly, 

elaborated on her thinking of evaluation as siloed this way: 

I mean, people tend not to think about it or worry about it until, 
you know, when the data is due, or they’re being observed, or 
they’re having their preconference, or something like that. Like, 
it feels like a zoom-in snapshot of this one moment in time and 
then maybe again later in the semester. But it doesn’t feel like an 
on-going thing. 

 
Her ELA 11 colleague Ms. Macallen indicated that she awaits prompts from her evaluator, a 

very much “check the boxes kind of person,” to which she gives the particular response she 

believes he wants. At Walker, Ms. Daniels averred that, even as a probationary teacher, she 

placed little emphasis on evaluation, changing little of what she usually did for any of her 

observations. Mr. Roses, in referring to several components of evaluation, explained that  

… I don’t really think about it [evaluation] very much at all. I 
mean, it’s not on my mind until there’s something that I have 
to do, you know, until it’s the day we were supposed to pick our 
goal … Or like the mid-year review, I don’t really worry about  
it. I didn’t worry about it until, you know, a day or two before I 
kind of thought about what I was going to say or what I wanted 
to talk about. … Same thing for the evaluation [formal observa- 
tion]. If they come to my classroom to observe me, you know, 
it’s not anything I really worry about until that happens. 

 
Finally, among Walker ELA 10 focus teachers, Ms. Forester stressed that she gave little thought 

to evaluation, and Ms. Williams felt like “evaluation is just something that happens.”  

In a similar vein, it seems that evaluation demands or teacher responses were rarely, if 

ever, raised in any significant way during PLC work or in connection with PLC demands or 

responses. In a follow-up interview, Ms. Daniels explained further how the Math 10 PLC worked 

regardless of evaluation: 

 

… I don’t really see too much overlap [between PLC and 
evaluation]. Like often in our PLC group, we’re not even 
worried about evaluation or what administrators may think,  

113 

 

 

or how this will affect our end-of-year effectiveness forward. 
We’re just honestly going about, you know, day-by-day, week- 
by-week, just teaching our content the best we can. Not really 
thinking of the evaluation piece. 

 
Mr. Roses and Mr. Bulliet independently agreed that evaluation was not a subject of PLC 

discussion, mainly because it was not relevant to more pressing PLC work, which directly 

contributed to their practice. With respect to the ELA 10 PLC, only Ms. Williams, a probationary 

teacher, said she had asked her PLC colleagues their view about certain evaluator comments 

during prior evaluations. She did not give a specific example; but as she described them, they 

sounded like informal interactions in which Ms. Williams sought her colleagues’ opinions about 

what her evaluator may have meant. These conversations in any event did not appear related to 

the PLC or its work. No one else suggested otherwise, nor that other discussions about 

evaluation occurred in any relevant sense. 

According to Ms. Dalmore at Woodford, by the 2019-20 school year, evaluation was not 

something that teachers brought up in PLC meetings or that pertained to PLC work. Aspects of 

evaluation had been an intermittent item of teacher talk during PLC time in the initial years 

following the district’s adoption the Marzano evaluation tool. The decision precipitated 

significant (and unpopular) changes in evaluation and PLCs (see Chapter 6). Similar to other 

changes in the evaluation system, some teachers in response went to their PLC colleagues for 

understanding and support with the process, requirements, and stress. More specifically, Ms. 

Dalmore said that teachers sought help and assurance with having the required Marzano scale (a 

kind of learning progression rubric for each curricular standard in a unit) and related material set 

for their observations. It was in this connection that Ms. Dalmore mentioned an occasion when a 

scale one teacher created for her evaluation was later used in her PLC to discuss instruction in 

the relevant unit. This is the sole example of an occasion when a teacher’s evaluation response 

 

114 

directly affected a PLC’s work. Ms. Laphroaig, too, described several occasions when she 

informed her PLC colleagues about the completion of evaluation system forms, administrative 

evaluation expectations, and lessons and materials she had used successfully for observation. 

All these sporadic instances seemed to have occurred in passing; they were certainly all 

past. They happened while the PLC/evaluation changes due to the Marzano framework were 

being implemented, and they were unrelated to the principal ELA PLC work assigned for the 

2019-2020 school year (see Chapter 6). The ELA grade-level/content PLCs had previously 

identified “priority standards” that they had incorporated into the Marzano scales they created. 

These, along with common assessments, had been aligned with the instructional units. As a part 

of my observations during the year in which this study took place, the ELA 11 PLC first 

reviewed the completion of this prior work, which was to form the basis for a course pack of 

materials. It then proceeded with the next part of a course pack—namely, drafting a narrative 

summary of the course and each of its units. In any event, like informal side conversations 

among teachers generally, these prior PLC/evaluation connections were at most ancillary to the 

ongoing work, objectives, or functioning of the ELA 11 PLC. More important, although some 

may have had their source in evaluation, they were—and most certainly are—largely unrelated to 

any PLC demand or response. 

If the compartmentalization of responses represents a sort of general rule, then each 

punctuation denotes an exception. Punctuation occurs when, given an opportunity, a teacher “de-

compartmentalizes” their PLC and evaluation responses, and instead opts to connect them for a 

limited time and particular purpose. More precisely, punctuations are occasions of agentic, 

temporary, and goal-oriented departures from the usual compartmentalized relationship between 

 

115 

responses to the opposite state: the interaction of responses such that the response to one demand 

is adapted to respond to the other.  

Even as focus teachers indicated that day-to-day compartmentalization was in effect 

“business as usual,” each focus PLC’s teacher-members readily identified the same, apparently 

highly salient, example of punctuation—i.e., a past or present PLC task or product that could be 

re-purposed for responding to an evaluation demand. All ELA 11 PLC study participants 

repeatedly pointed to the Marzano scales on which ELA PLCs had been working since the prior 

school year, and which administration required for the observation component of evaluation. All 

teachers in the ELA 10 PLC spoke of how their evaluators consistently solicited information 

about their PLC work during evaluation conferences. And the Math 10 PLC was united in 

determining to work on the collective analysis of individual teacher-member student growth data 

as also required for evaluation. While indicating compartmentalization by describing PLC and 

evaluation as “removed from each other” and “in two separate realms,” Mr. Bulliet also aptly 

characterized punctuation when in the student data analysis context he explained: 

 

I definitely think that they do have a hand-in-hand relationship 
in some respects, like because we’re supposed to gather data for 
both of them. … Some of it overlaps, and some of them like do 
kind of work together.  

 
On the district and school levels, opportunities for punctuation had their source in 

administrator structured and implemented relationships between evaluation and PLC. (The next 

chapter addresses how such structural relationships, as well as their interactions, shaped teachers’ 

adaptive responses.) From a teacher’s perspective, such opportunities actually arose in the timing 

and substance of the individualized evaluation demands to which they were responding. 

Teachers could apply certain PLC work in response to certain evaluation demands (for how, see 

the next section), and thereby benefit their own interests (for why, see the last section of this 

 

116 

chapter). Conversely, however, focus teachers saw little or nothing about evaluation that seemed 

timely or pertinent, let alone a benefit, to what their PLCs did or how their PLCs worked. Given 

the structural prompts to punctuation, together with the asymmetry in the useful interaction of 

responses, focus teachers pointed adaptations of responses in one direction only. All focus 

teachers recruited certain PLC responses to support of their evaluation responses, and not the 

other way around. 

Consistent with focus teachers’ accounts of their PLC work, the observational and 

documentary data reinforce the finding that PLC work was actually conducted in response to 

PLC demands and irrespective of evaluation (even if sometimes PLC responses were later 

adapted for evaluation). Further, when compartmentalization was punctuated, past or ongoing 

PLC responses could (and did) contribute to teachers’ evaluation responses, but not vice versa. 

Without exception, observations showed that all focus PLC work concerned PLC demands. 

Indeed, with the sole exception of a passing comment during a Woodford ELA 11 PLC meeting, 

none of the observational data includes any mention of teacher evaluation, even in general terms, 

let alone an aspect of any teacher’s response to evaluation. This absence of mention included the 

periods of time when teachers informally interacted before and after the regular meeting time of 

the focus grade-level/content PLCs. In contrast, as shown in more detail below, participating 

administrators and focus teachers agreed that PLC work and products often arose at particular 

points in the evaluation. Moreover, again as the following chapter section explains, teachers in 

their evaluation responses could (and did) use or refer to PLC products—documents or writings 

created for PLC purposes—without reference to evaluation. There is no such evidence that the 

reverse occurred. 

 

117 

All focus teachers and PLCs at both case schools acted within an overall context of 

punctuated compartmentalization. Most of the time teacher responses to PLC and evaluation 

demands were independent, self-contained. Yet, within the structural relationship between 

evaluation and PLC, as differently implemented in each case school, a range of opportunities for 

punctuation prompted focus teachers to interact responses in a particular way: collective PLC 

responses to PLC demands were adapted to help make individual responses to evaluation 

demands. How this process occurred, including the emergent patterns among adaptive response 

variations, is the subject of the next section.  

How Punctuation Happens: Interaction Opportunities and Adaptive Response Strategies  

 

Focus teachers punctuated compartmentalization within the structural relationship of 

evaluation and PLC, when an opportunity arose that they could act upon it in a timely and 

beneficial manner by adapting an available PLC response—i.e., past, present or potential PLC 

work product—to a present or impending evaluation demand. To work successfully, the process 

depended on its operative elements—structural opportunity and agentic action—fitting together 

like a key in a lock. Stating and supporting my findings about the punctuation process requires 

the identification and analysis of the kinds of locks and corresponding keys. Although both 

elements varied within and across cases, how focus teachers adapted certain PLC responses to 

satisfy certain evaluation demands forms a useful typology of teacher adaptive response 

strategies, at least in the context of the case schools. 

 

Some of the opportunities were explicitly communicated through related PLC/evaluation 

structures. Thus, for more than a year before 2019-2020 the Woodford district had tasked grade-

level/content PLCs like ELA 11 with creating Marzano scales, together with aligned common 

assessments, for the standards applicable to each curricular unit. The applicable standards 

 

118 

themselves were those from the Common Core State Standards (as adopted in Michigan, the MI 

CCSS). At administration direction, the Woodford ELA 11 PLC had previously designated some 

of the MI CCSS as “priority standards” for the ELA 11 curriculum, assigning them to the ELA 

11 units in which they were covered and assessed. For formal observations, teachers were 

required to submit lesson plans that included the relevant scale(s), with embedded priority 

standard(s). The lesson documents and materials were then reviewed in the pre-observation 

conference, and they could also be a subject of discussion at the post-observation meeting. The 

common, standards-aligned assessments were used apart from the observation component to 

collect data for a portion of the separate student growth component of evaluation. 

It was hardly surprising, then, that the focus teacher-members of the ELA 11 PLC 

stressed how they and their colleagues made sure to import a scale from the prior focus PLC 

work into the observation component of their evaluation in subsequent years. Despite differing 

views on the instructional utility of the scales, Ms. Dalmore, Ms. Laphroaig, and Ms. Macallen 

all responded without hesitation to this evaluation demand with a specific PLC product that lay 

right at hand. Even Ms. Macallen, the most negatively disposed toward both evaluation and PLC 

demands, admitted her appreciation that her PLC had created scales. “I could easily plug [a 

scale] into my evaluation tool. Had I, had we, not already done that work, I would have been 

fairly clueless about how to create those on my own.” Similarly, when each Woodford focus 

teacher selected the common assessments with which to collect student growth data, she was 

again re-purposing for evaluation a PLC product created in response to a prior PLC demand. 

In Walker, as in Woodford, explicit structural relationships between PLC and evaluation 

demands provided opportunities for adaptive responses, although between and within case 

differences emerged in how structures interacted and teachers responded. For example, Walker 

 

119 

teachers were not required to submit lesson plans or related materials in preparation for their 

formal observations. Still, lesson planning activities were a part of the first domain of the 

Danielson evaluation tool in Walker. Teachers could voluntarily submit plans and materials as 

supporting artifacts, and administrators could review and discuss them in the pre- or post-

observation conference. The Walker focus PLCs engaged in some form of common lesson 

planning. The ELA 10 PLC primarily concerned itself with lesson sequence, resources, and 

formative assessments. The Math 10 PLC took a more comprehensive approach by preparing and 

revising complete common plans specifying every element of the lesson. In both cases, focus 

teachers adapted aspects of their PLC’s work for use during the observation component of their 

individual evaluations.  

Under the Walker evaluation system, fifteen percent of a teacher’s effectiveness rating 

consisted of setting and achieving at least one approved “professional performance goal” over 

the course of each year. Teachers at Walker High School could respond to this individual 

evaluation demand by voluntary agreeing with their colleagues to a departmental or grade-

level/content PLC goal. Once approved by building administration, the collective goal was a 

PLC demand to which PLC work during the year responded. At the same time, each of the 

PLC’s teacher-members was responding to the goal component of their individual evaluations. 

For the 2019-2020 school year, both the ELA and Math Departments, and thereby their grade-

level/content PLCs like Math 10 and ELA 10, made goals concerning curricular standards and 

aligned assessments. Despite these goals’ common subject matter, the PLCs with their respective 

focus teachers, ended up adapting responses in different ways.   

The Math 10 PLC had already written its “essential standards” and common assessments. 

These were aligned with the MI CCSS and SAT, but they were fewer and more focused on what 

 

120 

the PLC’s focus teachers had determined constituted the most important student learning. The 

PLC therefore began to the revise them, along with some of the common lesson plans they had 

prepared and piloted in 2019-2020 when they had revamped the entire curriculum. After the 

2019-2020 year began, the Walker central administration decided that the Math Department 

(among others) should create a curriculum handbook or guide, mainly for students and parents, 

that would for each math class set forth its essential standards or learning targets, and give 

sample assessments. The Math 10 PLC folded this task into the work in which it was already 

engaged. Completing the district document became the outcome satisfying the departmental PLC 

goal, and ipso facto one of the teachers’ individual evaluation goals. 

The ELA 10 PLC, in contrast, was not at the point of a wholesale review of its 

curriculum. (It was to be the PLC goal for 2020-2021.) This PLC relied on selected MI CCSS 

tied to previously established units, although in the last few years, it began creating common 

assessments. The preceding school year a district curriculum committee that included Ms. Trace 

and the Walker ELA department chair had begun to develop a curriculum guide or packet to 

vertically align ELA standards district-wide. By the 2019-2020 school year, the district 

expectation for this internal document was expanded such that the curricular standards for each 

high school course would be aligned with newly created assessments and rubrics. These would 

be created in a standardized form for use solely to determine student growth in a class during 

each trimester. The ELA department adopted the completion of the guide as its PLC goal, which 

meant it could become an evaluation goal of the individual ELA teachers as well. Since Ms. 

Trace continued to lead the effort, this goal became the one that counted toward her evaluation. 

Both focus PLCs had in prior years created common assessments, on which they 

continued to work during the 2019-2020 school year. An essential demand of the DuFour PLC 

 

121 

model, which Walker building administrators emphasized, is that teachers in a grade-

level/content PLCs must collect, analyze and compare their students’ common assessment 

performance data as the basis for collaboration around curriculum, instruction and assessment. 

However, it appeared that few Walker PLCs had yet fully or consistently adopted the DuFour 

process. Moreover, to the extent student performance data were reviewed, the Walker focus 

teachers, whether in their PLCs or otherwise, could individually select the classes and common 

assessments to analyze, share and compare.  

The district relied on school-level NWEA and SAT test data to show student growth for 

that component of individual teachers’ evaluations. In September 2019, as one of several 

changes in the evaluation process, Walker central administration for the first time specified 

levels of student performance in each teacher’s classes that directly contributed to the teacher’s 

student growth effectiveness rating. To respond to this new evaluation demand, teachers had to 

change how they collected, analyzed and reported their student growth data.  

Although the ELA and Math departments adopted a common understanding of how to 

compute a student growth effectiveness level, the Walker PLCs differed in their responses. The 

focus teachers in the ELA 10 PLC planned to change their individual evaluation responses to 

accommodate the new demand, but their collective PLC work would remain unaltered. The Math 

10 PLC, in contrast, saw an opportunity to at once meet the new evaluation demand and the 

existing PLC demand to collect, analyze and discuss individual student data using the same 

lesson based on the same standard with the same assessment. The focus teachers accordingly 

agreed to a few essential standards with aligned common assessments that would be taught and 

given at virtually the same time during the second trimester. Then, as a PLC, they planned to 

analyze the collected data as a PLC, both for PLC and evaluation purposes. With time and 

 

122 

practice, this process of “killing two birds with one stone” could be effectively reiterated each 

trimester going forward. As Ms. Daniels summarized the PLC’s data analysis process, “it’ll be 

helpful for us to compare data, plus for us to present data for end of year evaluation.” 

 

Not all punctuation opportunities and adaptive responses were as directly and specifically 

related as those that involved the use of common PLC products (Marzano scales, standards, 

assessments), or the concurrent work in response to an overlapping PLC/evaluation goal or data 

analysis demands. Some instead depended on more open or flexible opportunities for teacher 

initiative or exploitation, where demands were less narrow or constraining, and evaluation 

responses more indirectly invoked PLC work more generally. Most prominently in Walker and 

Woodford, punctuation opportunities arose during evaluation-related meetings and similar back-

and-forth communications between teachers and administrators. These personal interactions 

presented relatively frequent opportunities to favorably adapt or characterize PLC work and 

products to support evaluation responses and results. Focus teachers nonetheless varied in their 

interpretation of any given opportunity and so in their agentic response.  

 

The Walker district first mandated individualized “mid-year review” meetings for the 

2019-2020 school year. Neither the specific purpose of the meetings, nor the impact on 

evaluation were clear to teachers or building administrators who were to arrange and conduct 

them. Absent guidance, the Walker principal, Mr. Creek, decided to structure the meetings 

around his favored school initiatives. He sent each teacher a brief nine question “survey” that 

asked about such matters as teachers’ progress toward their yearly goals; their PLC’s work, 

especially concerning student data; how they were planning comply with the new student growth 

standard; and any suggestions for improvement in school initiatives, including PLCs. The 

 

123 

implication was that the actual mid-year review meeting with Mr. Creek would take up the same 

questions. 

Focus teachers could respond to this new evaluation demand at least in part by adapting 

PLC responses, particularly since Mr. Creek had deliberately solicited teacher advocacy of their 

PLC work. Yet, focus teachers differed in taking the opportunity. On the one hand, Ms. Daniels’ 

response extolled the successes of the Math 10 PLC, as well as the PLC’s plan to analyze student 

data. (The closure of schools due to the Covid-19 pandemic prevented me from obtaining either 

Mr. Bulliet’s or Mr. Rose’s questionnaire. Nor did I have the opportunity to interview Mr. 

Bulliet about his mid-year review meeting. Both were in other contexts strong advocates for 

PLCs generally and their PLC specifically.) On the other hand, the focus teachers in the ELA 10 

PLC mainly gave cursory responses that did not promote their PLC, its work, or their own 

contributions.  

The ELA focus teachers described their individual meetings with Mr. Creek in similarly 

prosaic terms. According to Ms. Williams, for instance, the survey “just kind of felt like general 

questions.” At the meeting, she and Mr. Creek “talked about the [curriculum document] that 

we’re doing for central office. We talked about how the PLC is going. Talked a little bit about 

stuff for next year, as far as reworking classes. That sort of thing. … So it just kind of felt like a 

nice little check in to make sure we’re all on the same page and right direction.” Ms. Trace spoke 

in general terms as well: “We just talked about things that we can do to improve the school, and 

you know, things that we think are going well and things that collectively need improvement.” 

Mr. Creek “asked questions about how well we’re getting along, how well, you know, we’ve 

progressed in this latest goal.” For these focus teachers, the mid-year review seemed a required 

 

124 

but more or less insignificant step they needed to complete. Ms. Forester summarized the process 

thus: 

Well, we did, for the first time this year, a mid-year evaluation  
questionnaire before we went into speak with our administrator.  
So that was e-mailed to us. And then there were some talking points 
for getting into them online. And then we went in to schedule a time 
to meet. And then we just kind of went over how things are going, 
schoolwide, classroom wide, PLC—all of those types of things. 

 
The way the Math 10 PLC focus teachers approached the same punctuation opportunity 

differed from that of the ELA 10 teachers, even as Ms. Daniels’ experience diverged from that of 

her PLC colleague Mr. Roses. Because the Walker assistant principal, Mr. Mark, unexpectantly 

went on a leave, all math teachers met with the district superintendent instead of Mr. Creek. Ms. 

Daniels, the first to have her mid-year review meeting, came away incensed because the 

superintendent had little knowledge about her teaching and other professional work, for example 

as a coach. Worse, “we did not discuss my PLC work in any way.” She said the meeting was 

pleasant enough, but “I honestly feel like I got nothing from the meeting. …I basically just heard 

the superintendent’s vision for the next year and the things he would like to implement. Totally 

different from what I was expecting.” Mr. Roses, expressed a diametrically opposed response to 

his meeting: 

 

 

…I kind of looked at it as an opportunity. I don’t know that I’ve 
ever had a conversation with [the superintendent] other than when 
I was hired. … So it was good to sit down with him, and kind of let 
them know what I’d been doing this year and what our PLCs had 
been doing, and things I’m excited about and to kind of get some 
positive feedback from him. 

Mr. Roses, in other words, took the initiative in his response to an evaluation demand to promote 

what the Math 10 PLC had accomplished, his contribution to it, and its positive effect on his 

teaching.  

 

125 

At both case schools, observation-related and year-end evaluation conferences sometimes 

provided opportunities for focus teachers to adapt for evaluation their PLC’s work, products and 

results, as well as their individual participation, improvement, and contribution to district/school 

goals. These response interactions and adaptations took two forms: first, focus teachers could 

advocate for their PLC and their role in it; second, focus teachers could rely on their PLC to 

explain, justify, or project confidence or faith in their choices during the evaluation process. 

Again, however, there was between and within case variation in how any adaptation occurred.  

Despite her reaction to her mid-year review meeting, Ms. Daniels had used evaluation 

meetings both to advocate for and to rely on the work of the Math 10 PLC. According to all its 

members, their PLC jelled during a highly productive 2018-2019 school year. Ms. Daniels 

explained that, when the PLC’s focus teachers went into their year-end evaluation meetings, “we 

were excited to share the work we had done,” and so each did. The PLC’s effective collaboration 

continued into 2019-2020, which in part set her up for the disappointing mid-year review 

meeting. Going in, Ms. Daniels "wish[ed] that my PLC work was helping to, like, guide the 

evaluation piece” as it had in 2018-2019. By the end, she had concluded, “but that was not the 

case for my mid-year review.” Still, in connection with the observation component of evaluation, 

Ms. Daniels emphasized she could rely on her PLC work to support her response to the 

evaluation observation demand: 

I would say the fact that I get to do, like, cool and engaging 
activities when my administrators observe me that stemmed 
from PLC. I didn’t come up with a lot of those myself. We 
came up with those together. 
 
So we definitely put our brains together, came up with crea- 
tive things, not necessarily for observation’s sake, but we 
wanted to have a few really cool things that we did in our 
classrooms each trimester… . 

126 

 

 

Mr. Bulliet referred in general terms to the same sort of collective confidence and 

validation the Math 10 PLC provided him, which strongly supported his professional growth and 

thereby his response to evaluation demands. Mr. Roses even more specifically tied the collective 

quality of the Math 10 PLC’s to his evaluation performance: 

I feel like, by working together, that what we do on a daily basis 
is better. And because I know that it’s, that the instruction is good, 
I know that the assessments are good, that we have a wide variety 
of experiences for the students, but I’m not really concerned about 
when I get observed. 

 
All the focus teachers in the ELA PLC acknowledged opportunities during their 

evaluation meetings to promote or rely on their PLC work to support their response to individual 

evaluation demands. Like their responses to the mid-year review meetings, however, they were 

vague about the discussion. Ms. Trace said that the topics of her evaluation meetings and her 

PLC work during the first half of 2019-2020 “were pretty intertwined because a lot of things that 

I brought up in my evaluation were things we were working on in [the ELA 10 PLC].” Yet, the 

examples Ms. Trace mentioned were limited to the district curriculum document, which did 

concern the interaction of Ms. Trace’s PLC and individual evaluation goals, and a proposal for a 

new college preparation (honors) level ELA 10 course, which was unrelated to evaluation. Ms. 

Williams merely mentioned that during her post-observation conference, “it’s brought up, you 

know, how is your PLC time? How are you working on that?” Referring to her evaluation 

meetings, Ms. Forester noted that, “[w]ell, we always discuss PLC because our administrator 

[Mr. Creek] really likes PLCs [and not evaluation.] … So, I mean, yes, we’ll definitely talk about 

PLC and PLC time.” Ms. Forester for her part suggested that PLCs would be more effective, for 

example in analyzing student data, if departments were not assigned so many administrative 

tasks during PLC time.  

 

127 

It seems that teachers in Woodford had opportunities to present their PLC work as 

supporting their observed lesson because administrators introduced or invited the subject during 

evaluation meetings (see Chapter 6 for the goal and design orientations underlying the 

administration’s approach). According to Ms. Lauder, the secondary education director, building 

administrators such as Mr. Regal and Dr. Sark were having “very intentional conversations” 

during pre-observation conferences about the teacher’s lesson and the Marzano tool. These 

evaluation discussions related back to the teacher’s PLC work. They indicated “where teachers 

are in their thinking on the standards-based model and using a scale with kids, and being 

comfortable with what it means to move through the scale, which is the work of the 

departments.” The Woodford High School principal, Mr. Regal, answered “absolutely” when 

asked whether a teacher’s participation in their department time PLCs ever arose as an issue in 

evaluation meetings. “We talk a lot about how they’ve worked with their other colleagues to 

develop this unit or gotten feedback about things or how the department [in grade-level/content 

PLCs] decided on this scale or this progression. So, yes, it [PLC work] definitely comes up 

during those pre- and post-[observation] conferences.” Dr. Sark, an assistant principal, spoke of 

pre- or post-observation meetings when a teacher would explain a lesson in part by referring to 

their PLC discussions about it. (Dr. Sark did go on to point out that, while she appreciated 

teachers’ attempts to engage in such PLCs conversations, she was disappointed that they didn’t 

concern the Marzano tool or its instructional strategies.)  

If the administration’s perspective seems clear enough, the extent of teachers’ adaptive 

responses to the opportunities presented is much less so. Ms. Macallen, who found “insulting” 

both administration-driven PLC tasks and evaluation processes, did not identify any evaluation 

conversation involving her PLC work or even her use of PLC products in evaluation. With some 

 

128 

prior familiarity with the Marzano framework, Ms. Dalmore described how she modified her 

lessons for her own observations and how she incorporated PLC work products. Like Ms. 

Macallen, however, Ms. Dalmore did not relate any evaluation discussion about any 

PLC/evaluation connection. Ms. Dalmore did indicate that other teachers’ PLC work may have 

indirectly benefited them in evaluation:  

I guess there’s a sense of confidence that comes from PLC that 
helps our teachers in terms of their actual evaluation. You know,  
feelings like, hey, I’m doing things that I need to do. Here’s what 
my department and I have talked about, I know I’m teaching the 
right thing. 

Ms. Laphroaig in her evaluation conversations made explicit an affirmative PLC/evaluation 

interaction. She described her observation preparation and related lesson discussion this way:  

I essentially pulled that scale for [the relevant unit]. And I looked 
at it, looking at the prompts, looking at the thesis, what the scale 
requires. I pulled that piece out and added it to my lesson plan, so 
I could show my administrator, this is the scale that I’ve taken this 
from; this is the piece I’m working on today; this what you’re going 
to see. So I was able to take that work that I’ve been doing within  
my [PLC] for the last couple of years and then apply it directly to my 
evaluation by saying, OK, this is the scale that we developed, and 
this is what I’m focusing on, and this is how I’m going to get there. 
 

The interview, observational, and documentary data all converge on the identification, 

summarized above, of those instances when and how focus teachers in focus PLCs punctuated 

the default state of evaluation/PLC compartmentalization. The analysis of what teachers and 

PLCs did to interact their responses reveals four meaningful categories along two intersecting 

dimensions that represent agentic patterns or forms of how punctuation occurred—i.e., the ways 

or strategies teachers employed to adapt PLC work done in response to PLC demands for 

application in evaluation responses to evaluation demands. More specifically, I propose four 

types of adaptive response strategies, four distinguishable kinds of keys—teacher agentic 

 

129 

responses—that fit the locks—the punctuation opportunities presented by the structural 

evaluation/PLC relationships in the case schools. I have termed the four proposed types of 

strategy (1) Selective Use, (2) Dual Process, (3) Professional Validation, and (4) Lobbying. Each 

is descriptively defined with generic examples in Table 5.1. 

 

 

130 

Table 5.1 Teacher Adaptive Response Strategies 
 

Description 

 

Examples 

 

 

Adaptive 
Response 
Strategy 

 
 

Selective Use 

 
Teachers’ collaborative work in response to a PLC 
demand results in a product that may later be used, 
adapted for use, or be a model for use in response 
to an individual performance evaluation demand. 

 

  To plan for and conduct a lesson for formal observation, a teacher 

incorporates into their lesson plan and materials the curricular 
standard, rubric, and assessment that their PLC produced. 

  To collect and analyze student growth data, a teacher uses the 

common assessment that their PLC produced. 

  A PLC’s teachers use their PLC-produced curriculum standard, 
assessment, and scoring method for collecting and   analyzing 
student data both to show student growth for evaluation purposes 
and as a basis for PLC collaboration over instructional strategies 
and formative assessment.  

  A PLC-selected collective goal is also selected by a PLC member 
as an individual evaluation goal; work on and the achievement of 
the same goal satisfies both a PLC and an evaluation demand. 
  A teacher relying on PLC-produced and piloted lessons feels 

justified or confident in instructional choices and so better 
prepared for observation, and can better respond to evaluator 
ratings, questions, and feedback. 

  During a pre- or post-observation conference, a teacher justifies 
their lesson choice and content based on PLC-produced lesson 
components and materials. 

  A teacher uses a mid- or year-end evaluation conference to 

advocate for greater consideration of PLC work (obstacles faced 
and/or accomplishments) as affecting individual performance 
and/or to show furtherance of administrative goals.   

  In response to evaluation-mandated reflection, questions or 

evaluation tool domain, a teacher advocates for value of PLC 
work and contributions; includes the submission of PLC artifacts. 

 
 
 

Dual Process 

 

 
Teachers’ collaborative work in response to a PLC 
demand involves a goal, task or activity that, 
together with the end product, simultaneously 
constitutes a response to an individual performance 
evaluation demand. 

 
 
 

Professional 
Validation 

 

 
Teachers’ collaborative work in response to a PLC 
demand supports a response to an individual 
performance evaluation demand with peer-created, 
approved or endorsed product. 

 
 
 

Lobbying 

 
Teachers’ collaborative work in response to a PLC 
demand provides evidence of individual 
contribution and/or PLC success to support or 
promote a response to an individual performance 
evaluation demand. 

 

    

 

131 

The strategies are not mutually exclusive. Teacher agentic responses may involve more than one 

based on how a given teacher sees and takes opportunities for punctuation. For example, for her 

observation lesson preparation Ms. Laphroaig selectively used a Marzano scale, which she then 

professionally validated during her pre-observation conference. Ms. Laphroaig’s ELA 11 PLC 

colleagues, Ms. Macallen and Ms. Dalmore, had the same opportunities in the evaluation process, but it 

seems they applied the Selective Use strategy alone. Similarly, the Math 10 PLC focus teachers 

together selected a few essential standards and aligned common assessments to use for student data 

collection and analysis. They planned, in addition, to take advantage of the Dual Process strategy, as 

they would in their PLC examine the student data for evaluation and PLC purposes. At least before the 

pandemic, each ELA 10 focus teacher intended to selectively use common assessments for individual 

computations of student growth.   

The four adaptive strategies can be meaningfully compared and distinguished along two 

intersecting dimensions. One of the dimensions contrasts specific direct uses with holistic indirect uses 

of PLC responses (work and/or products). Selective Use and Dual Process represent the former because 

teachers can directly satisfy to an evaluation demand with a specific PLC product. They are 

distinguished along this dimension by the timing of production: Selective use involves production in 

response to a past PLC demand and before use in evaluation, whereas Dual process involves production 

and use in evaluation through the same process as responds to a contemporary PLC demand. Selective 

Use occurred when Woodford focus teachers plugged a portion of an existing Marzano scale into the 

lesson plan for their formal observation and when Walker teachers selected the PLC-created common 

assessments with which to collect student data. Dual Process occurred when Walker Math 10 focus 

teachers collected and analyzed student data for both PLC and evaluation purposes, and when Ms. 

Trace worked on the curriculum document, which simultaneously moved her toward the achievement 

 

132 

of her evaluation and PLC goals. Holistic Professional Validation and Lobbying involve holistic 

indirect uses because teachers’ response to an evaluation demand advocates for or relies on the 

collective authority or professional bona fides of the PLC qua PLC. As a pair of holistic indirect 

strategies, Lobbying and Professional Validation differ in their “offensive: as opposed to “defensive” 

orientation. The former occurred, for example, when Ms. Daniels and Mr. Roses in evaluation meetings 

affirmatively promoted the successes of the PLC they effectively contributed to. The latter was shown 

when Ms. Laphroaig justified her lesson plan in an observation pre-conference with reference to its 

implicit PLC endorsement. Holistic indirect uses rely on a teacher’s proactive choices to employ them, 

while teachers’ decisions for specific direct uses are more reactive, requiring a close match in 

PLC/evaluation demands.  

The intersecting dimension compares the relative degree of teacher versus PLC focus of the 

adaptation. Selective Use and Professional Validation both entail an adaptation focused on what the 

PLC collectively did or made available—created the product for use or the record for support in 

evaluation responses. Put another way, the adaptation could not occur unless the PLC had first 

appropriately responded to PLC demands. The high teacher/low PLC focus strategies—Dual Process 

and Lobbying—also involve PLC responses to PLC demands; but in each case, the focus of the 

adaptation lies in what or how the teacher contributed to the PLC’s work. Even when the Math 10 PLC 

implemented the Dual Process adaptive response strategy, each teacher still was individually 

responsible for contributing their data, participating in its analysis, and reporting effective results for 

the personal evaluations. Similarly, the focus was on Ms. Trace’s role and goal when she in an 

evaluation meeting explained the challenges she faced as the leader of her department PLC in 

completing the district curriculum document.    

 

133 

Figure 5.1 places each of the four adaptive response strategies in the appropriate cell 

representing the intersection of the two dimensions. 

Figure 5.1 Two Intersecting Dimensions of Proposed Typology 

 

Degree of 

Teacher/PLC 

Focus of Adaptation 

 
 

Lower/Higher 

 

Higher/Lower 

 

 

Specific Direct Use 

Holistic Indirect Use 

(More Demand Dependent) 

(More Response Dependent) 

 

Selective Use 

 

Dual Process  

 

 

Professional Validation 

 

Lobbying 

 
This section has shown that, during the individual evaluation process, each focus teacher 

took at least one opportunity provided by related PLC/evaluation demands to adapt their PLC’s 

work, which constituted collective responses to PLC demands, for use in responding to 

evaluation demands. To account for the totality of teacher adaptive responses, this section has 

also proposed a typology of four adaptive response strategies characterized by two cross-cutting 

dimensions. The final section of this chapter completes this study’s findings as to the first 

research question by examining the principal factors motivating teachers’ agentic deployment of 

adaptive response strategies in the structural contexts of the case schools.   

Why Teachers Punctuate Compartmentalization: Teacher Goals and Response Values 

This study finds both that focus teachers typically responded to evaluation and PLC 

demands separately as they independently arose and that teachers sometimes punctuated the 

usual state with adaptive response strategies. Why did teachers engage in affirmative departures 

from the status quo? This section shows that focus teachers were motivated to punctuate upon 

the alignment of their goals in responding to PLC and evaluation demands with the relative value 

 

134 

or benefit they derived from engaging with each. Further, the same correspondence of goals and 

values helps explain the compartmentalization of responses in the first place. 

Focus teachers derived little benefit from the routinized evaluation systems in Woodford 

and Walker. The low value of evaluation was directly and reciprocally tied to teachers’ principal 

goal in responding to evaluation demands—compliance. Practically every focus teacher in one 

breadth both disparaged the evaluation process and expressed resignation to its mandate.  

At Walker, Ms. Williams characterized evaluation as “a lot of busy work,” but also as “a 

necessary evil that somebody else is making us do.” Ms. Williams’ ELA 10 PLC colleague, Ms. 

Forester, succinctly agreed: “[F]or me at least, it’s just, it’s something that has to be done, but it 

doesn’t really mean much to me.” One of the Math 10 PLC focus teachers, Mr. Roses, similarly 

explained that “evaluations are not something that has ever done anything good for me as a 

teacher. It’s just something that I’ve had to do.” Mr. Bulliet supplied a final example from the 

Walker focus teachers, when referring to the observation component, he said: “So I don’t feel a 

ton of usefulness from it. It’s kind of a hoop that I have to jump through because it’s part of my 

evaluation[.]” 

The Woodford focus teachers all expressed similar sentiments in almost identical terms. 

Every one used the “hoop” metaphor. Ms. Dalmore used it twice, including when she said, “It’s 

like, oh, it’s just one more hoop to jump through, because it doesn’t feel like, oh, these are things 

I want to do.” Ms. Macallen mixed three metaphors in her characterization of the observation 

component, calling it “all busy work and just having to jump through those hoops and check the 

boxes, and get it over with so they can add it to our overall evaluation score at the end of the 

year.” At another point, Ms. Macallen summed up the evaluation process as a whole:  

[I]t’s just another thing we have to do throughout the year. … 
[M]ost people I talk to, whether they’re new teachers or have 

 

135 

been here as long as I have or longer, they find it equally tedious 
and just a hoop they have to jump through and get it over with. 

 

Focus teachers offered various, often overlapping rationales for their low estimation of 

the value of evaluation and of the purpose of responding to its demands. Often differences 

among responses turned on the emphasis given one or another reason. Math 10 PLC colleagues 

Ms. Daniels and Mr. Roses agreed that evaluation was, in the latter’s words, “irrelevant to what 

we do on a daily basis.” But at the same time, while Ms. Daniels did not find the process overly 

stressful, she felt frustrated by the absence of substantive feedback, even when she sought it. Her 

experience with mid-year review (discussed in the chapter section above) caused her to find the 

evaluation process “even more useless, because I felt that it was honestly a waste of my time[.]”  

Mr. Roses and the third Math 10 PLC teacher-member, Mr. Bulliet, did point to the inherent 

discomfort, even fear, the evaluation process provoked. The focus teacher members of the ELA 

10 PLC evinced a similar pattern of interlocking explanations. At one point, Ms. Trace was irked 

because the observation domain ratings seemed more or less random or arbitrary. At another, 

she, later joined by Ms. Williams, expressed confidence that, wholly apart from the evaluation 

process, her building administrators would let a teacher know if their job was in jeopardy; and by 

the same token, should administrators wanted to fire someone, they would find a way to do so. 

Ms. Forester’s opinion was somewhat akin to her PLC colleagues, as she felt in effect that “no 

news is good news.” She and Ms. Trace in addition maintained that evaluation did not concern 

them because their building administrators had communicated that they did not find the process 

particularly necessary or helpful. 

 

Within the overall consensus and supporting rationales, focus teachers’ assessments 

varied somewhat due to idiosyncratic factors. Several focus teachers tried to put something of a 

positive spin on the process. Ms. Dalmore thought her evaluation was important; it did have 

 

136 

some value, she commented at one point. It provided the impetus to improve otherwise old or 

stale lessons. She could then present them in a fresh way and receive some feedback. Ms. 

Laphroaig, a probationary teacher, thought evaluations using the Marzano tool provided a clear 

and standardized language with which to have conversations. Moreover, “given that it’s not 

something that’s optional, I have worked to try to make it, if not an overly valuable experience, 

at least something that’s not a complete waste of my time.” For Ms. Laphroaig, the process had 

resulted in highly effective ratings. Ms. Williams, who had a highly negative experience teaching 

in another state, found Walker evaluation meetings informal and low pressure, actually affirming 

in a way. They represented a “kind of confirmation of what’s happening,” and “it’s nice to know 

we’re pretty much on the same page, I think.”  

 

Other focus teachers had personal reasons for panning the evaluation process. In 

Woodford, Ms. Macallen detested the Marzano framework, not only for its adoption as 

evaluation tool, but also for how its adoption precipitated a change in PLC tasks and 

expectations. Although she said she maintained a professional relationship with her evaluator, 

she found it insulting that a veteran teacher like herself was evaluated by an assistant principal 

who had no K-12 teaching experience. For years at Walker, it was a common belief among 

teachers that virtually everyone who complied with the evaluation process would be rated 

“effective.” The supposed lack of teachers rated “ineffective” or “highly effective” evidenced the 

even-handed implementation of evaluation without unfair favoritism or bias. During the 2018-

2019 school year, ELA teachers discovered that a significant number of teachers had in fact 

achieved highly effective status. The revelation especially upset Ms. Trace and Ms. Forester, 

among other teachers (they asserted). They thereafter expressed distrust of building 

administration and distain for evaluation, with its results being characterized as “meaningless” 

 

137 

and “worthless.” Ms. Trace’s suspicions grew further in 2019-2020 when the central 

administration issued new evaluation requirements around the student growth component. 

Administrators understood and sometimes shared their teachers’ attitudes toward the low 

value of evaluation and compliance as its principal goal. Ms. Lauder, the Woodford central 

administrator, and Mr. Creek, the Walker principal, expressly gave compliance as the principal 

reason for the implementation of the state-mandated evaluation system. Mr. Creek and his 

counterpart in Woodford, Mr. Regal, both acknowledged that the severe practical constraints—in 

time, sampling of performance, subject matter expertise, the press of other duties—on any 

administration’s capacity to move beyond mere compliance to help teachers improve through 

meaningful feedback. Most teachers did not seek or expect meaningful feedback; rather, they 

complied with evaluation demands in exchange for the summative rating. (Some such as Ms. 

Forester and Ms. Macallen claimed not even to review that.) Dr. Sark lamented the times when 

she had prepared significant formative feedback, only to have teachers look at the evaluation 

coversheet with their summative ratings and ignore the rest of the document. “But at the same 

time,” she admitted, “it is another thing for them to do, just like it’s another thing for us to do.” 

Given the low value teachers associated with the achievement of compliance, the focus teachers 

at the case schools appreciated when administration made evaluation “paperwork” less 

burdensome. The move did not make evaluation more valuable, but it did reduce the cost of 

compliance. 

Not surprisingly, all focus teachers valued their PLCs, especially by comparison to 

evaluation. Ms. Daniels voiced the common position that “I benefit so much from my work with 

PLC, and I don’t gain very much for my evaluation.” Ms. Trace made a similar point in 

somewhat more dramatic language:  

 

138 

So for PLCs, I would say they’re invaluable. I can’t imagine 
functioning without a PLC. I don’t know how people do that. 
And then for the evaluation, I would say it’s wasteful.  

All focus PLCs exhibited professional interactions, and all focus teachers enjoyed collegial 

relationships among their focus PLC. Despite such generally shared feelings and the overall 

positive value focus teachers found in their PLC work, the nature of PLC benefits, and thus the 

corresponding goals in responding to PLC demands, varied among the focus PLCs. The variation 

seemed to depend on the degree of PLC autonomy in the selection and purpose of each PLC’s 

work. (Chapter 6 takes up the question of the contrasting design and goal orientations of each 

case school and district.) 

Each school year the Woodford central administration directly assigned specific grade-

level/content PLC work and required certain PLC products for completion during the scheduled 

department or content time meetings. For 2019-2020, the ELA PLCs were to continue working 

on district project of implementing the Marzano instructional framework through their curricular 

documents, starting with the scales the PLCs had produced the previous year. Of course, the 

focus teachers in the ELA 11 PLC differently valued this administration driven work, in large 

measure depending on their attitude toward the district’s purpose (see Chapter 6). But in any 

event, compliance was the overt PLC goal in the circumstance. Compliance was not the only 

goal, however. Although the PLC did not control what was assigned, it did largely determine 

how the work was conducted. This allowed for the process itself to benefit teachers. Ms. 

Laphroaig, who had assumed the role of ELA 11 PLC scribe, explained (and showed) how the 

PLC could prepare scales and other required curricular documents while still developing a 

collective understanding of how to maintain desirable control and autonomy in their classrooms. 

Curricular documents were accordingly drafted without “painting ourselves into a corner where 

 

139 

we felt like we no longer have the freedom to teach in a way that felt authentic to each of us 

individually.” In other words, the PLC could (and did) pursue a goal of compliance with teacher 

classroom flexibility and autonomy.  

Individual focus teachers, moreover, found valuable side effects of the required PLC 

work, which served other goals such as gaining professional learning and upholding collegial 

norms. Ms. Dalmore, for example, disliked the tedium of drafting Marzano scales, but she, like 

Ms. Laphroaig, felt it worthwhile to have something viable to show for their work. In the 

process, moreover, Ms. Dalmore enjoyed the conversations around curriculum from which she 

always took something away to improve her practice. As Ms. Macallen put a like view:  

[W]e do end up gleaning some information about different units 
and books and texts and student writing that is a side piece to— 
that just comes up naturally in these conversations while we’re 
creating the scales, which I find valuable.” 

 
Ms. Macallen stressed that, notwithstanding resistance to working on the Marzano framework, 

she tried to be “a team player” who understood the need for compliance and so would not leave 

all the work for her colleagues to do. 

The DuFour PLC model in Walker allowed PLCs substantially more autonomy—teacher 

control over PLC time and work—within broader guidelines and subject to certain expectations 

for PLC products. The Math 10 PLC had developed into a dedicated and cohesive group that was 

largely self-motivated and directed. Its focus teachers collectively took responsibility for all 

aspects of the Math 10 curriculum, instruction and assessment, all with the aim of innovating and 

improving their own practice and students’ learning. Each focus teacher highly valued their PLC 

work and what they saw as its beneficial effects on themselves and their students. They all spoke, 

for example, about how their PLC had made teaching more meaningful, exciting, and passionate. 

The stated and demonstrated goal was continuous professional growth through authentic 

 

140 

collaboration with professional accountability. Mr. Bulliet spoke for the PLC when he reflected 

that “I feel like a lot of what I do as a teacher has been driven by what we do in our PLC, the 

way I interact with my colleagues,” and when he concluded that “I’ve definitely grown as a 

teacher because of my PLC.” 

The Walker ELA 10 PLC also valued their open and honest collaboration, which mainly 

concerned preparing for and problem-solving the more practical issues of day-to-day practice. As 

Ms. Williams summed up the matter: 

I think that one of the most valuable times we can get as profession- 
als is when we get to talk to each other about the specific day-to-day 
stuff that we do and why we do it. … And so having a place that essen- 
tially is a forum to talk about that and be thoughtful is extremely valuable. 

 
For Ms. Trace and Ms. Forester, the Walker’s PLC model served to formalize the relationship of 

mutual support they had formed as new teachers a couple of decades before. The formalized 

ELA 10 PLC was then available to admit Ms. Williams to the relationship when she later came 

to Walker. Again, unlike evaluation, ELA 10 focus teachers perceived benefit from PLC work 

toward PLC goals.   

 

This is not to say that the Walker focus teachers found all PLC work of value, or that no 

PLC work involved low value compliance. For example, departmental PLCs were required to 

meet in one place at the beginning of each period of PLC time. There they often had to first 

address administrative matters such as technology or other materials issues, class scheduling and 

composition, or other administrative concerns. Teachers were also required to view online 

presentation and complete review quizzes about the DuFour model of PLCs. Focus teachers to a 

person did not find these activities particularly beneficial, even if required.  

More telling were the directives that Math Department PLCs produce a curriculum 

handbook and that the ELA Department complete a far more detailed curriculum guide. These 

 

141 

projects entailed a PLC compliance goal, but the two focus PLCs reacted differently in terms of 

value. Ms. Trace, the most involved ELA 10 teacher, believed that central administration had 

imposed the curriculum guide as a goal and that it was valueless for teachers: “I’m positive 

everybody [in the department PLCs] is not on board with it. But we’re doing it because we’re 

told to. It’s a whole lot of busy work to prove what we’re already doing.” Mr. Roses of the Math 

10 ELA saw the Math curriculum handbook—again, a more modest demand compared to the 

ELA document—as a way to show the district’s central administration all that the focus PLC and 

teachers were accomplishing. The Math 10 PLC as a whole turned the compliance work on the 

document into an opportunity to revise and focus the essential standards, which in turn led to the 

collective revision of certain lesson activities and formative assessments. 

 

Notwithstanding the variations in PLC and evaluation between and within the case 

schools, a clear and consistent asymmetry between the values and goals of PLC and evaluation 

responses had a significant implication when a structural relationship between the two presented 

an opportunity for punctuation. For teachers could obtain valued PLC benefits and achieve 

desired PLC goals through the very process of responding to PLC demands. The low value, and 

in any event incommensurate, products of evaluation were irrelevant to the PLC process. But 

those PLC responses came in handy when adaptively applied to evaluation.  

This explains why Ms. Macallen who opposed Marzano scales was nonetheless grateful 

that she could simply plug them into her evaluation documents. It is why Ms. Dalmore and Ms. 

Laphroaig said that the Selective Use and Professional Validation of scales reduced the stress of 

observation preparation, making it easier and less time-consuming. As Ms. Laphroaig elaborated: 

… [W]hen we say, you’re going to come into my classroom, this 
is the lesson you’re going to see; these are things that I’m evaluat- 
ing. That’s not something we are reinventing every year, that we’re 
drawing on work that we’ve done collectively as a group in order 

 

142 

to make that sort of streamlined. 

 
It is why Mr. Bulliet pointed out that the district’s changes to the demonstration of student 

growth did not increase the burden of evaluation compliance because his PLC was already 

engaged in such analysis, as well as why many Walker teachers likewise choose PLC goals as 

evaluation goals. And it is why Ms. Daniels and Mr. Roses were eager in evaluation meetings to 

promote their work in the Math 10 PLC.  

Teachers normally compartmentalized their responses to PLC and evaluation demands as 

each arose because the goal and corresponding value of responding could be directly, 

independently achieved. The low-valued evaluation process demanded individual compliance, 

and only so much as would result in an effective or highly effective summative rating. PLC 

demands could also involve a compliance goal to some degree, but determining when a group’s 

work product was compliant, and imposing any consequence for non-compliance, were 

problematic exercises at best. Moreover, beyond mere compliance, teachers’ PLC responses 

often served higher-valued goals like peer collegiality, shared responsibility, and professional 

learning. It was in this context that teachers would often take opportunities to increase the utility 

of their PLC responses by decreasing the cost of their evaluation responses. At the same time, the 

achievement of PLC goals, even compliance goals, were not hindered but could be enhanced, 

and the achievement of the evaluation goal was made more efficient. Teachers sought, in short, 

reconcile their agentic responses with structural demands by engaging in punctuated 

compartmentalization. 

 

 

 
 
 
 

143 

DESIGN AND GOAL ORIENTATIONS UNDERLING EVALUATION/PLC 

STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIPS SHAPE TEACHER ADAPTIVE RESPONSES 

CHAPTER 6 

Chapter 6 applies the structure branch of this study’s structure-agency framework as it 

 

 

answers my second research question: How, if at all, does the relationship between structures of 

performance evaluation and professional learning community shape teachers’ adaptive 

responses? 

The answer begins in the first section of this chapter, which descriptively compares how 

each case school and its district differed in their approach to relating PLC and evaluation 

structures as they were implemented during the school year. Because the approaches were 

alternative ways of addressing the coherence challenge that evaluation and PLC presented to 

each administration, the section also explores the alternative design and goal orientations 

underlying each administration’s structural relationship. Based on its means to and objective for 

attaining coherence, the Woodford administration implemented structures that were by design 

primarily control oriented with an external goal orientation, while the design of Walker’s 

structures was primarily commitment oriented with an internal goal orientation. The second 

section examines how the alternative, administratively determined structures and relationships 

affected teachers’ opportunities for punctuation, which involved the interaction and adaptation of 

compartmentalized PLC/evaluation responses, as well as teachers’ use of particular adaptive 

response strategies to take advantage of those opportunities. 

Relationships Between PLC and Evaluation Structures Rest on Administrative Design and Goal 
Orientations 
 
 

Chapter 5 showed how and why Woodford and Walker teachers use four kinds of 

adaptive response strategies when the structural relationships between PLC and evaluation 

opened opportunities for agentic action. Yet the structural relationships between PLC and 

 

144 

evaluation at the case schools were hardly the same. Further, it would seem that Woodford and 

Walker had faced the same sort of coherence challenge as they routinized the implementation of 

a state-mandated evaluation system along with a locally-adopted PLC model. Yet, again, the 

relationships between structures today differed. Before one can understand how varying 

structural relationships may affect teachers’ adaptive responses, one must know how each case 

reached its current state. 

Woodford “has always had PLCs,” Ms. Lauder thought, and its teacher performance 

evaluation dated to the state law mandate. The district pursued both along parallel tracks until the 

state law was amended to require that districts choose an evaluation tool from a state-approved 

list. Woodford chose the “Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model.” It was this decision that 

precipitated a serious coherence challenge between evaluation and PLCs. The challenge was 

accentuated by the then-existing structure of PLCs and a strong aversion to the Marzano 

framework among teachers. 

District leaders had determined that to improve teaching and learning district-wide, they 

would adopt a consistent instructional framework providing for standards-based units with 

defined student outcomes and aligned assessments. Once state law required a choice, and the 

Marzano tool seemed the better option in the circumstance, “what we said from this [central] 

office is we wanted to make the best of a bad thing.” Ms. Lauder explained further: 

Well, first and foremost, it [evaluation] was implemented 
because it's state law. … However, rather than it just feel- 
ing like a hoop, a compliance hoop, we've really attempted 
to embed this [Marzano] model into our professional devel- 
opment so that it's seen as a growth tool. 

 
At another point, Ms. Lauder returned to her view of the relationship between evaluation, the 

district’s goal, and teacher reaction to the district’s approach:  

 

145 

We knew we had to comply. In looking at the Marzano elements, 
they themselves are not inherently evil. And we have to assign a 
number, and I think assigning the number has been not very help- 
ful in growing teachers. We are hoping that over time the anxiety 
about those numbers will decrease as people realize that it's not— 
they're not losing their jobs; it's not changing the way that they do 
their work—that their anxiety about that will go away, and we'll be 
able to benefit from having a consistent instructional framework, 
which I would have done anyway, whether Marzano was here or not. 

 
The bottom line remained, Ms. Lauder emphasized, that “I do want there to be a consistent 

framework district-wide, and that’s the framework we use.” 

Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, the district rolled out a three-year professional 

development plan to advance the overarching goal—a consistent instructional framework 

district-wide. The coherence challenge would be addressed through the process of implementing 

the Marzano framework/model in multiple professional development settings and activities. 

Most significantly, it constituted the required tool in teacher evaluation, and it would be 

integrated into, on some issues it would drive, the work of PLCs. Plan implementation depended 

on certain changes in the then-existing systems of evaluation and PLCs, such as the following: 

  The district not only trained administrator-evaluators on the use of the Marzano tool, 

but it also directed them to rate only those elements they actually observed; for the 

final summative rating, evaluators had to observe and rate all twenty-three elements. 

Discussions during the pre- and post-observation conferences, as well as other 

required teacher responses (e.g., self-assessment, professional development plan, 

lesson planning) were to involve the Marzano tool/model, at least in part. 

  For their observations, teachers had to submit a scale (or relevant portion of one) with 

their lesson plan; the scale would also be a subject during pre- and post-observation 

conferences. Dr. Sark, for example, stressed that teachers were 

 

146 

expected, through the evaluation, … that they have a scale and 
that they have explicit ways to show, tell students where they  
are in their learning, where they're going, what they're learning, 
using that scale to talk about that in the classroom. … If you 
don't have that, you're completely dead in the water on the first, 
on the planning and the standards based [elements] on the evalu- 
ation tool. So basically, that's an explicit connection that we make 
often, too, with our staff that you have to have a scale, you have to 
know how to do a scale. 

 
  The district implemented a district-wide calendar of for all professional learning 

meetings and activities, including those involving content time and collaborative time 

PLCs, as well as whole building initiatives, cross-level teacher meetings, and district 

professional learning days. PLC. 

  For content or department time PLCs, like the ELA 11 PLC, department heads like 

Ms. Dalmore, met with building and central administrators before the start of each 

school year. District administrators at this meeting first gave the department heads 

feedback on their department’s PLC work from the prior year (which had been 

reviewed over the summer). Ms. Lauder then directly assigned grade-level/content 

PLC work and required PLC products for completion during the meetings scheduled 

for the year. Ms. Dalmore described the first such meeting pursuant to the plan (2017-

2018), as well as the meeting going into the 2019-2020 school year: 

So the department chairs were instructed at the beginning of 
this school year, I mean, really two years prior that we needed 
to start working on aligning the scales of, creating scales that 
showed proficiency of the skills within … the unit. … So luck- 
ily, [Ms. Lauder] is nice and flexible about that [organizing by 
unit], which is good. But we knew we had to do this.  

                                                   *     *      * 

 

… [A]nd they kind of wanted to see where everybody was in 
the process, so we've been adding our completed or, you know, 
rough draft I guess, scales to a SharePoint folder that the curricu- 

 

147 

lum office has access to. So [Ms. Lauder] and [Elementary Cur- 
riculum Director] looked over those this summer and gave some, 
I’d say some descriptive feedback or questioning feedback on the 
scales that they gave back to department chairs at the beginning of 
the school year this year, and then gave us like a kind of a checklist 
of other additional things to accomplish where, you know, like here's 
where you are, here’s where we need to go.  

 

Ms. Dalmore would make a calendar, which she shared with her department’s PLCs, 

that scheduled the goal for each meeting during the year so that the districts 

expectations for PLC work product would be achieved.  

  Because the district was required to provide teaches with professional development 

on the evaluation tool, the district reorganized collaborative time PLCs (those not 

under study) to match the Marzano framework instructional domains. Teachers 

selected one of these cross-grade, cross-discipline groups to work on the designated 

instructional element over the year. 

  District administrators were aware that, as Ms. Lauder put it, “if you talk about the 

Marzano model, our teachers will scrunch up their faces and say, ‘ee-eu,’ like they 

smell something awful.” Further, they saw one of the obstacles to implementation as 

PLC “time on task and feeling ownership over the work. So anytime you centralize 

work, people feel like it’s being imposed on them, even if it’s their own work.” 

Consequently, the district did not communicate in Marzano terms, but instead tried to 

send the message that “we’re not doing it because it’s Marzano; we’re doing it 

because it’s best practice, but it happens to align with our tool as well.” 

For the 2019-2020 school year, the ELA PLCs were to continue working on the district 

project of implementing the Marzano instructional framework through their curricular 

documents, starting with the scales the PLCs had produced the previous year. The ELA 11 PLC 

 

148 

in particular was to revise the wording of its scales “to use those Marzano words specifically as 

opposed to our own thinking” (Ms. Dalmore) and to review the scales’ alignment with the 

relevant curricular units and the semester examinations. The updated scales were to serve as the 

foundation on which the PLC was to construct an ELA 11 “course pack.” In addition to the 

scales, the course pack would consist of a narrative description of the course, its units, and its 

scope and sequence (akin to a standardized master syllabus). Later, common unit assessments 

and corresponding student work exemplars would be included.  

The origin of Walker’s PLC/evaluation coherence challenge lay in a precipitating event 

unlike Woodford’s. Walker had adopted the Danielson framework/tool early on in the its 

implementation of the state-mandated evaluation system. It did not have PLCs until years later 

when Mr. Creek almost single-handedly brought them to the district. After researching, training 

and advocating for the DuFour model, Mr. Creek took the opportunity to implement the DuFour 

PLC model about three years after becoming Walker High School principal. He was joined in the 

effort by the new assistant high school principal, Mr. Craig, who also became a DuFour disciple. 

Because Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig were convinced that the DuFour PLC model was the best route 

to teacher and school improvement, their main aim for the high school its implementation with 

fidelity, which required a deliberate professional development process to get teacher buy-in and 

successful experience with the model. 

 

Because building administrators still had conduct teacher evaluations in compliance with 

state law and district policy, a coherence challenge ensued at Walker High School. Due to its 

unreasonable demands on administrators’ limited capacities, Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig saw 

evaluation as a matter of compliance even before DuFour PLCs arrived. Worse, to Mr. Creek, 

evaluation and PLC were “pretty much in direct antithesis of each other, when you’re trying to 

 

149 

foster teamwork, and they you’re saying you’re going to have an individual score … [I]t just pits 

teachers against each other that are supposed to be working together.” Mr. Craig had the same 

perspective:  

[T]hey don't really mesh together very well. … One is compliance, 
and ranking and sorting, and the other is collaboration and growth. 
I really, I mean that's honestly truthful. I mean, one is literally slap- 
ping a number on them, and telling them you are a ninety-four point 
one, and the other is this process of collaboration and growth. 

 

Mr. Craig further explained that for year Mr. Creek and he had been trying to address the 

coherence challenge, what he called “this pull and struggle between the PLC process and formal 

evaluation.” 

District central administration eventually decided to implement PLCs in all its schools. 

Fortunately for him, Mr. Creek retained almost unfettered latitude in implementation at the high 

school. The district supported the efforts of Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig through funding DuFour 

training and approving school schedule changes, but it was and remained “not hands on,” as Mr. 

Creek said, or “hands off,” as the assistant superintendent, Mr. Mark, put it. Historically, the 

district also allowed building administrators a mostly free hand in the conduct of teacher 

evaluations were conducted. (The district may have started to change its approach in 2019-2020, 

as noted below.)  

 

Given their view that evaluation was a best an impediment to effective PLCs and at worst 

a threat, Mr. Creek reasoned as follows: 

So obviously part of it is state mandated that we have to follow 
the law of the land, if you will. But we don't feel it to be an effective  
way to really make people into being better instructors. So, you know, 
I mean, we do pretty much what the minimal law requires us to do to 
evaluate and still meet the standards that the state is looking for. 

 

 

150 

(Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig separately told the same story about DuFour taking the same position 

during a presentation they had attended.) Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig therefore decided to “de-

emphasize” evaluation but nonetheless use some of its components “to leverage the things we 

already want to do.” They accordingly implemented the DuFour PLC model through actions 

such as the following: 

  Beyond their own extensive DuFour training, Mr. Creek and Mr. Craig sponsored 

cohorts of Walker teachers to attend the annual DuFour PLC “institutes.” By 2019-

2020 over 60% of the teaching staff had gone. They also personally delivered 

extensive in-school professional development on the DuFour PLC mode. 

  Practically every Wednesday, the regular class schedule was modified to create an 

extra class period, which was used on alternate weeks for PLC and the other main 

school initiative, a Response to Intervention (RTI) program. Later, mandatory after 

school staff meeting time was converted to PLC time. A portion of district 

professional development day time was turned over to PLCs as well. 

  PLCs were organized by department first, and then by grade-level/content groups. 

Some time was allotted for departmental issues, but the smaller PLCs had substantial 

autonomy to develop their own norms, agendas, processes, etc. There were general 

expectations and work product requirements. For core subjects like ELA and Math, 

these included the establishment of course “essential standards,” curricular scope and 

sequence, and common summative and formative assessments, all aligned with the 

MI CCSS and the SAT. With these in place, per the DuFour model, PLC work was 

supposed to emphasize student data collection, analysis and comparison. 

 

151 

  Building administration reduced the paperwork and teacher submissions required for 

evaluation. 

  Building administration encouraged teachers to adopt their PLC’s goal as their own 

for evaluation. Administrators in evaluation meetings almost always asked about 

teachers’ PLC work and needs for support. Otherwise, evaluation meetings were 

short, informal, low pressure, and not overly concerned with individual teachers’ 

performances. It was widely believed that virtually every teacher was at least rated 

“effective.” 

  Mr. Creek was aware that his teaching staff took their cues from him, so he and Mr. 

Craig endeavored to send a strong message about the relative importance of and 

expectations around evaluation and PLC. As Mr. Creek explained: 

… [W]e've tried to minimize how important that [evaluation] is to us, 
to our staff. And I think they understand that it's not really what  
we're looking for, but we have to do it. And, you know, there's cer- 
tain things we've got to comply with, and we'll do those things. We're 
not trying to hide anything. We're not trying to avoid anything. But,  
you know, I think for all, you know, I would use minimally, as we're 
required by law to do, and we'll do that, but we're not going to focus on it. 

 
For 2019-2020 school year, Mr. Creek created a “PLC Guiding Coalition” of department 

representatives. They met regularly to address PLC issues and to act as liaisons between building 

administration and the departmental PLCs. Individual PLCs were to continue working on their 

self-adopted goals consistent with the administration’s general expectations. The district central 

administration did add several twists to the year, however. 

In September, central office issued a revised “Evaluation Handbook,” along with 

additional evaluation and PLC requirements. Administrators were then required to electronically 

submit a form documenting every informal observation. To tie individual student performance in 

 

152 

each class to the classroom teacher the handbook provided a new classroom standard to the 

rating categories. PLCs were tasked with producing a curriculum handbook, and in the case of 

the ELA department, to complete the more extensive curriculum guide, together with a generic 

student growth assessment. Finally, building administrators were to conduct “mid-year review” 

meetings with each of their teachers. (Mr. Creek responded to this last evaluation demand with 

the teacher questionnaire described in Chapter 5.) The ELA department, at least, saw these 

changes as unwarranted interference with the school-level PLC work.  

A comparison of how and why Woodford and Walker related PLC/evaluation structures 

as a designed means to a particular end goal reflects two opposing orientations. Woodford 

structured its PLC/evaluation demands with a control design orientation, while Walker employed 

a commitment design orientation (Rowan, 1990; see Ingersoll, 2003; Talbert, 2010). Further, 

Woodford’s overarching goal—one district-wide instructional framework—was outside of or 

external to the related structures of evaluation and PLC; Walker sought to successfully establish 

the authentic DuFour PLC model in the high school, a goal integral or internal to the related 

structures. The means-end pairing of control-external and commitment-internal orientations 

reflects an obvious logic, at least in the context of the two cases here.  At Walker, PLCs are 

almost by definition embody the commitment orientation, the DuFour model at the school level 

particularly so (DuFour, 2004; DuFour and Eaker, 1998; DuFour and Fullan, 2013; DuFour, et 

al., 2004). The goal is directed internally—i.e., to and for the school whose members are 

empowered by it. Conversely, a school, still less a district, administration could implement 

DuFour PLCs by control design, since authentic collaboration cannot be conjured by fiat, not the 

least because teachers will resist working toward the intended goal (Talbert, 2010; see 

Hargreaves, 2007). The Woodside central administration, in contrast, adopted a goal that 

 

153 

explicitly involved implementing the same instructional framework for all schools and teachers 

in the district. Centralized control of implementation is necessary to ensure that all standardize 

their instructional framework with strict fidelity. Otherwise, the benefit for all units intended by 

the center cannot be achieved. If a commitment orientation were adopted instead, the inevitable 

fragmentation would lead to uneven, or maybe no, implementation, likely wasting resources 

without any significant, scalable or sustainable improvement. 

To summarize thus far: Within the last few years Woodford and Walker independently 

faced a coherence challenge precipitated by a policy determination about a particular goal around 

teacher and school improvement. The administration in each locale designed its own path to 

address the coherence challenge and to achieve its policy goal. Both plans required the 

reconfiguration of PLC and evaluation structures in relationship to each other as an important 

means to the larger ends. The unsurprising result was different structural relationships based on 

different design orientations that are directed to different goal orientations. 

 

Each linked pair of orientations—control-external in Woodford, commitment-internal in 

Walker—conditioned teacher responses to punctuation opportunities, including the use of 

adaptive response strategies. The next section examines how. 

Administrative Design and Goal Orientations Affect Teacher Punctuation Opportunities and 
Related Use of Adaptive Response Strategies 

 
The first section of this chapter explicated the characteristics of the PLC/evaluation 

structural relationships, resting as each does on linked orientations, at Woodford and Walker 

respectively. Table 6.1 comparatively summaries these characteristics. 

Table 6.1 Comparative Characteristics of PLC/Evaluation Structural Relationships 

District/ 
School 

Grade-Level/Content 

PLCs 

 

 

 

Woodford 

 

ELA 11 

154 

 

Walker 

ELA 10 
Math 10 

Table 6.1 (cont’d) 

 

 

District Central Administration 

School Administration 

Primary Level 

Determining Structural 

Relationship 

Primary Goal of  

Implement Marzano 

Structural Relationship 

instructional framework K-12 

Primary Goal 

Orientation of Structural 

Relationship 

Primary Design 
Orientation of  

Structural Relationship 

Relative Degree of  

Teacher Agency Within  
Structural Relationship  

Administrative 

Framing/Messaging of 
Structural Relationship 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Structural Relationship 
Interaction Opportunities  

  

 
 
 
 

Other Contextual Factors 

Affecting Structural 

Relationship 

 

External to school level 

evaluation/PLC 

 

Control 

 

Lower 

Integrate common elements of 

Marzano framework into 

evaluation and PLC demands to 
incentivize desired responses 

 
 
 Initial online evaluation 

prompts/ planning 

 Pre- and post-observation 

conferences; year-end 
conference 

 Standard, scale for observation 
 Some common assessments for 

student data collection 
 

 
 
 

All teachers belong to two kinds 

of PLC: departmental-

content/grade-level and cross-
disciplinary collaboration; 

activities/tasks of both concern 

implementation of Marzano 

framework 

Implement DuFour  

PLC model in high school 

 

Internal to school level 

evaluation/PLC 

 

Commitment 

 

ELA 10 – Moderate 
Math 10 – Higher  

Emphasize priority of PLC over 
evaluation; leverage evaluation 

demands to encourage PLC 

development 

  Individual/PLC goal-setting 
  Pre- and post-observation 

conferences; year-end 
conference 

  Standard, lesson, materials, 

formative assessment for 
observation 

  Common assessments for 

student data collection 

  Mid-year review questions and 

meeting 

  Individual/PLC common 

standard, lesson, assessment for 
and analysis of student data 

New central administration 

requirements for evaluation and 

PLCs: (a) “Evaluation Handbook,” 

including new informal 

observation requirements, standard 
for rating student growth; (b) PLCs 

create departmental coursebook; 
(c) mid-year review requirement; 
(d) ELA department to create 9-12 
curriculum document and generic 

assessment for student growth 

 
It is apparent that alternative design and goal orientations afford punctuation 

opportunities—the locks of the Chapter 5 metaphor—that vary in number and nature. In light of 

 

155 

the typology’s two dimensions, some prospective keys—the adaptive response strategies of 

Chapter 5—may fit some Woodford or Walker locks better than others. But before addressing 

this possibility, there is an overarching consideration: teachers’ attitudes toward the paired 

orientations themselves appear to affect teachers’ decisions whether and how much to act in 

response. 

The focus teachers in Woodford’s ELA 11 PLC exhibited a range of attitudinal reactions 

to the district’s control-external orientations. First of all, Ms. Dalmore’s perspective stemmed 

from her role as the ELA department head, with its attendant responsibilities “up” to 

administrators and “down” to her teaching peers. She wanted to fulfill her obligations for both; 

and despite some ambivalence, Ms. Dalmore felt she should participate in the process on account 

of the possibility for beneficial results. She explained: 

I think in both cases [evaluation and PLC], especially with this, 
with the scale and this process that's been introduced about using 
the scales and creating this working document [course pack] that 
we're using, I think both that and the evaluation process have re- 
quired a certain amount of buy in and belief in the process that I 
am for the most part invested and are willing to, you know, take 
a risk and trust that there's a purpose behind this that will lead to 
better teaching.  
 
So I would say in that regard I engage in both with of a willing- 
ness to try, you know. And I think that that's, I think is important 
as being a department chair that I have that kind of attitude, too, 
like the fact that my attitude will influence how much my depart- 
ment engages in this as well. If I approach it with a really nega- 
tive or dismissive attitude, that they also will feed off of that. 
So I think it's more that than anything else. 

 
Holding this position, Ms. Dalmore apparently did not feel compelled to lobby, but she would 

(and did) “follow the rules” to use the Selective Use and Professional Validation strategies with 

respect to Marzano scales (including selected standards) and common assessments. Presumably 

she would have used a Dual Process strategy if an opportunity had existed.  

 

156 

Ms. Laphroaig emphasized her use of the same strategies as were available to Ms. 

Dalmore. Ms. Laphroaig may have also engaged in Lobbying, though it is unclear. She clearly 

perceived the Marzano-based connections between evaluation and PLC, and she shared the 

administration’s approach to messaging when interacting with her colleagues. (It was suggested 

that Ms. Laphroaig and Ms. Lauder were personal friends.) Whether or not she supported the 

administration’s goal, Ms. Laphroaig accepted the control orientation because she was getting 

along by going along, both with her colleagues and with administration. (She would soon 

achieve tenured status, and she wanted to maintain her highly effective rating.) Ms. Laphroaig 

was at the same time seeking efficiency in compliance and wanted to get something 

professionally positive out of all required tasks.  

Finally, Ms. Macallen, a veteran teacher, who thought the pre-Marzano systems of 

evaluation and PLC were beneficial, reacted to evaluation and PLC work in strongly negative 

terms. She found PLC tasks like the Marzano scales, which had been “pretty much shoved upon 

us by upper administration,” and evaluation process professionally “insulting,” as well as 

“useless” and “worthless.”  Ms. Macallen did not see any connections to a larger goal, and she 

tried to minimize her engagement. Not surprisingly, then, Ms. Macallen had no use for Lobbying 

or Collective Validation; and since Dual Process was unavailable, she did only that explicitly 

required—Selective Use in evaluation of the Marzano scales. 

At Walker, focus PLCs embraced the commitment-internal goal orientations as their 

own—at least to the extent of their understandings of DuFour PLCs and authentic PLC work. 

The focus teachers absorbed the administration’s messaging about relationship between PLCs 

and evaluations. The ELA 10 PLC focus teachers all confirmed that the Walker building 

administration strongly promoted PLCs but strongly disfavored evaluation. The close alignment 

 

157 

of administration’s structural orientations and teachers’ attitudes reinforced their ownership of  

the internal goal and buy-in to the commitment design. The Math 10 PLC focus teachers were in 

agreement. Mr. Bulliet, a second-year teacher, gave perhaps the best summation: 

And I think that we, here at [Walker], we strike a really good 
 balance of putting less weight on the actual evaluations and 
more weight on how you grow together in your PLC to help 
improve your practice. And so I think that's been like the big- 
gest thing that I've seen and the biggest way I think that it's,  
it's helpful. It's just, that focusing more on the growing pro- 
fessionally through the PLCs and less on, like high stakes 
evaluations and making them less high stakes, less like, make 
or break for the evaluations, and more about the working to- 
gether in the PLCs and trying to grow professionally.  

 

Teachers’ did not rest their positive attitudes merely on administrators’ statements. Ms. Daniels, 

for example, noted that the building administration helped teacher prioritize PLC work by 

“carving out time in our schedule” for it. And as Mr. Roses explained: 

But, you know, based on the effort and the resources poured 
into the PLC process, it’s kind of communicated directly or in- 
directly that, you know, this is really important, you know, teach- 
ers working together and looking at data, and collaborating, and 
coming up with best practices and the best assessments is way 
more important than you trying to prove you are a good teacher. 

 

The consensus view did not prevent differences among focus teacher use of adaptive 

response strategies. These seemed to turn on two main factors, which were discussed in Chapter 

5. First, the focus PLCs diverged in what each considered important PLC work and so the state 

of that work. For example, both would selectively use PLC-determined essential standards and 

common assessments for the student growth component of evaluation. But only the Math 10 

PLC was prepared to use the Dual Process strategy for collecting and analyzing student data 

from the same common assessment of the same standards at about the same time. The two focus 

PLCs likewise took different approaches to responding when district central administration 

 

158 

required the production of the curriculum document—a rather control-external sort of 

intervention. (In fairness, the demand on the ELA department exceeded what the Math 

Department was supposed to accomplish.) The second, somewhat related factor concerned 

individual and group level preferences given the commitment design orientation. Not all focus 

teachers, for instance, employed the Dual Process strategy for their PLC/evaluation goal. Again, 

in the case of Ms. Trace and the ELA department PLC, an addition factor was the setting, and 

expanding, of the PLC goal by central administration. There were apparently divergences in the 

use of the Professional Validation and Lobbying strategies, as well, whether in usual evaluation 

meetings or in the new mid-year review meeting. In short, perhaps due to the relative 

inexperience of it focus teacher-members, the Math 10 PLC apparently united to use all adaptive 

response strategies, whereas the ELA 10 focus teachers had more individualized agentic 

responses.  

In addition to the overall effect of structural orientations on focus PLC and focus teacher 

use of adaptive response strategies, the four strategies could more or less fit the PLC/evaluation 

structural relationships at the case schools depending on the dimensional location of each. Thus, 

on the specific direct/holistic indirect dimension, the former strategies are demand-dependent. 

This implies that administrative structures can in effect compel or preclude the Selective Use and 

Dual Process strategies. Woodford required the selective use of Marzano scales in evaluation, 

but it provided no opportunity for the Dual Process strategy due to the tasks and products the 

district assigned to the PLCs. Walker by implication had PLCs make selective use of common 

standards and aligned assessments; but because of its commitment orientation, PLCs and 

teachers could opt or not for the application of the Dual Process strategy to the determination of 

student growth. With respect to the dual processing of PLC/evaluation goals, Walker made the 

 

159 

choice entirely voluntary. The holistic indirect strategies of Professional Validation and 

Lobbying are always available, at least in principle, but they depended on what the PLC had 

actually accomplished and how the teacher had contributed to it (if one is going to be honest, 

anyway). Whatever the design orientation then, holistic indirect use depends more on teacher 

initiative, with the likely effect assayed a case-by-case basis. 

  With respect to the individual teacher/collective PLC focus dimension, a control-

external orientation would seem better suited to promote the former type of strategies (Dual 

Process and Lobbying), if the structures admit of a reasonable connection with the goal. 

Administration might be able to specify both sides of a Dual Process, again depending on the 

goal and opportunity costs for PLC resources. As for lobbying, if Woodside administrators in 

evaluation meetings specifically question teachers about their contributions to PLC activities or 

professional learning around the Marzano framework, some teachers might be incentivized to do 

both (or to explain why they could not do so). The general problem, of course, lies in superficial 

compliance, half-heated responses, or other forms of indifference or resistance. It might seem 

easier to control the PLC focused strategies (Selective Use and Professional Validation), but here 

there is again the issue of determining PLC product quality and responsibility for same. Further, 

even a quality product does not eliminate the free rider problem of group work. A commitment-

internal orientation depends on teacher and PLC buy-in, regardless of focus. The free rider 

problem does not go away for the PLC-focused strategies, but there may be higher quality if 

teacher drive the work product. Similarly, the teacher-focused strategies, there will certainly be 

variation depending on the individual finding the work and goal to be linked and worthwhile. 

Rowan (1990) suggests that the implementation of either design orientation could 

improve school performance. Here, the approaches of Woodford and Walker seemed reasonably 

 

160 

matched to their respective goals, which rest, after all, on divergent theories about what will 

improve teacher performance. Each approach seems to have worked, at least in the short run, by 

influencing, though not determining, teachers’ agentic behavior in mitigation of similar 

coherence challenges. There also seem, however, to be significant variation in the nature and, 

value of teacher and PLC responses and performance, which, even before the pandemic, held 

uncertain promise for lasting, coherent, and meaningful change. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

161 

CHAPTER7 
DISCUSSION 

This dissertation examines a specific instance of what Robinson, et al. (2017, p. 3) in apt 

understatement called the “difficult challenge” posed by multiple, concurrent reforms: 

“[a]chieving coherence within and across the improvement efforts undertaken by any one 

school[.]” Moreover, because coherence cannot be achieved once and for all, meeting a 

coherence challenge occurs through a dynamic, ongoing process (Honig and Hatch, 2004; Louis 

and Robinson, 2012). Honig and Hatch (2004) emphasize research showing how districts can 

partner with their schools to “craft coherence” through bridging and buffering strategies. And to 

be sure, administrators in Woodford and Walker did implement related, if varying and changing, 

evaluation and PLC structures. Nevertheless, this research shows that classroom teachers acting 

within related structures can and do participate in their own form of coherence crafting. It thus 

substantially broadens and deepens our knowledge of how and by whom the coherence challenge 

might be successfully addressed at the grassroots level. 

 

The overarching significance of this study for our understanding of the coherence 

challenge brings with it several important implications that bear elaboration. In the first section 

below, I discuss the conceptual and analytical power that a structure-agency framework brings to 

research, as here, involving ongoing, routinized implementation of related, but coherently 

problematic, teacher quality measures. The second section discusses the principal implications of 

the findings explicated in Chapters 5 and 6. What do those findings say about how and why 

coherence crafting resulted from teacher adaptive responses within the structural relationships 

that district and school administrations implemented? Finally, the discussion in the final section 

concerns a different set of implications, those which pertain to policymakers, practitioners, and 

researchers going forward. 

 

162 

Administrative Structures, Teacher Agentic Responses, and Policy Coherence 
 

 
Researchers do not lack for theoretical approaches to the study of policy implementation. 

The choices run a gamut from principal-agent theories to social network theories to institutional 

theories to some versions of critical theory (Coburn, 2016). A sense-making framework is today 

commonly relied upon in the study of the implementation of a wide variety of reforms (see 

Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer, 2002). Indeed, sense-making and similar approaches may be 

especially well-suited to the understanding of the initial or implementation of largely new or 

innovative policies (e.g., Coburn, 2001; Marsh, et al., 2017; Reinhorn, et al., 2017). 

This study examines a different sort of implementation in a different sort of context. 

Woodford and Walker took separate routes to the institutionalization of related routines for the 

conduct of teacher evaluation and PLCs year after year. The routines at each site differed in 

design and goal orientation, as well as organizational detail. At both, however, the development 

of the related implementation routines at each school was shaped by the coherence challenge 

posed by the concurrent implementation of an externally imposed and an internally adopted 

teacher quality policy. By the time of this research, well-established structures and processes of 

evaluation and PLC, while still subject to modification, consisted of certain demands to which 

teachers responded. Given the institutionalized and iterative nature of the yearly re-set of PLC 

and evaluation in significant part to manage a coherence challenge, this research applied a 

structure-agency approach (Coburn, 2016; Rigby, et al., 2016). Under the guidance of the 

research questions, the chosen framework focused data collection and analysis on teachers’ 

agentic responses to the structural demands of each policy that administrators in each case had 

established and implemented in relationship to each other.  

 

163 

If “the question of policy implementation is fundamentally about the relationship 

between social structure and agency[,]” the results of this study demonstrate the potential utility 

and versatility of a structure-agency framework for research like that here involving 

comparative, multi-level coherence challenges arising from interacting responses and structures. 

The strength of the framework is reflected in the findings about each component of “punctuated 

compartmentalization,” but it is foregrounded in the findings of how punctuation works. As the 

lock and key metaphor for punctuation in Chapters 5 and 6 suggests, the structure-agency 

framework facilitates the analysis and understanding of each of punctuation’s categorical 

elements—i.e., policy demands and policy target responses—as well as how they fit together or 

interact to produce (or not) the policy outcomes of interest. Furthermore, structure-agency 

approaches can elucidate the influences of structures and actors across multiple organizational 

levels (Rigby, et al., 2016; see, e.g., Woulfin, 2016). The coherence challenge Woodford and 

Walker faced arose in large measure due to how the implementation of PLC and evaluation—

their structural demands, agentic responses, and interactions—spanned multiple levels within the 

case schools (school, PLC, teacher) and between the case schools and the larger education policy 

environment (state, district, school).  

These structure-agency advantages stand in stark contrast to the application of 

frameworks that, whatever the terminology, focus on structure or agency to the exclusion of the 

other. Because a focus on one or the other often “results in an emphasis on one organizational 

level,” such an alternative approach “often ignores other potential conditions and interactions 

that may be instrumental in how the policy plays out” (Rigby, et al., 2016, p. 296). Here, for 

example, a structure-only focus could miss or misconstrue how teacher PLC/evaluation 

responses interact through the use of adaptive response strategies. A focus only on teacher 

 

164 

agency in applying adaptive response strategies could overlook or underestimate how different 

structural orientations influenced the adaptation of responses, when adaptation occurred, and by 

whom. It is in the integration of structure and agency that is peculiarly illuminating about policy 

implementation in educational settings (Rigby, et al., 2016). 

The tools of a structure-agency framework “provide a way to uncover the microprocesses 

by which social structure influences action, and how action, in turn, influences 

institutionalization” (Coburn, 2016, p. 473; see, e.g., Russell and Bray, 2016). The instant 

research utilizes this feature in its comparisons of routinized PLC and evaluation between cases 

schools and among the embedded PLCs with their teacher-members. Comparison in this context 

requires the analysis along meaningful dimensions of varying administrative structures and 

corresponding teacher agentic responses. Chapter 5 proposes a typology of teacher 

microprocesses denominated as four adaptive response strategies organized within two cross-

cutting dimensions. This result emerged from a structure-agency analysis that compared focus 

PLC and focus teacher agentic responses to the punctuation opportunities opened by structurally 

related demands. Similarly, Chapter 6 finds that a comparison of the opposing Woodside and 

Walker structural design and goal orientations helps explain how the resulting structural 

relationships based on the control-external versus the commitment-internal pairings may 

influence teachers’ use of adaptive responses.  

Finally, a structure-agency lens benefited the examinations of how Woodford and Walker 

administrators and teachers attempted to address the PLC/evaluation coherence challenge in the 

local contexts of Woodford and Walker. Efforts to craft coherence almost by definition involve 

the recursive interaction of policy structures and agentic responses (Honig and Hatch, 2004). A 

structure-agency focus highlights the recursive nature of these interactions, which in Woodford 

 

165 

and Walker have effects on administrator and teacher responses to the structural demands those 

in each position confront. For example, the more teachers in Walker opt for the Dual Process 

strategy when choosing their evaluation and PLC goals, or the teacher-members of the Math 10 

PLC use Lobbying to garner positive recognition of its work, the more those structural 

relationships are reinforced, as a component of evaluation becomes more about PLC work and 

results. On the other hand, when the Walker district directed mid-year reviews and a new 

standard for determining teachers’ student growth rating, Mr. Creek responded to what were 

from his position structural changes. His actions—namely, making the teacher questionnaire the 

basis for discussion and encouraging a Dual Process strategy for analyzing student data—in 

effect opened new punctuation opportunities that, if taken by teachers, may change PLC and/or 

evaluation structures. 

Coburn (2016, p. 473) argues that “[m]ost policies in education seek to foster change in 

organizations (schools and school systems) by shaping and channeling individual behavior in 

particular directions.” That is certainly the case at both the individual and embedded group 

(PLC) levels in the routinized, related functioning of evaluation and PLCs at Woodside and 

Walker. Coburn (2016, p. 473) continues: 

Theories of structure and agency provide conceptual tools for 
understanding when and how aspects of the social structure (in 
this case policy) influence individual action and interaction and 
how that, in turn, reinforces or alters rules, roles, and relation- 
ships in schools and school systems.  

 

Yet researchers at present seem to underutilize a structure-agency approach. Schooling during 

the unprecedented consequences of the covid-19 virus entails radical disruptions in routinized 

structures, responses and interactions at all levels in all processes, resulting in a cascade of 

coherence challenges, many of which may persist even as the pandemic abates. Especially in the 

 

166 

contemporary context, then, this study suggests that it might prove fruitful to exploit the 

strengths of a structure-agency approach. 

Coherence Crafting Through Teacher Adaptive Response Strategies Within Related Structural 
Demands 
 

 Scholars have long recognized the signal role played by “street-level bureaucrats,” who 

in effect make policy through the very process of implementing it (Lipsky, 2010 [1980]; 

Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977). The phenomenon occurs because “the work of street-level 

bureaucrats is inherently discretionary”; their work is subject to the policy structures that specify 

what they are to implement, but as a practical matter, “street-level bureaucrats are constrained 

but not directed in their work” (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977, p. 172). In the education policy 

field, the role often falls to teachers and administrators at the school level because it is there that 

they must exercise constrained agency to implement policies designed, adopted, and 

promulgated by the system’s higher levels (Knapp, et al., 1998; see, e.g., Donaldson and 

Woulfin, 2018; Russell and Bray, 2013).  

This multiple case study does not involve how teachers as school-embedded street-level 

bureaucrats responded to the demands of one policy; rather, it seeks to explain how teachers 

responded to a coherence challenge—the concurrent, iterative implementation of two very 

elaborate, very different teacher quality improvement policies. This study broadens our 

understanding from teachers’ agentic actions altering a policy in implementation to their agentic 

actions contributing to coherence between policies as implemented. It extends and augments our 

knowledge of how an “old” phenomenon in implementation works in contexts involving the 

implementation of multiple teacher quality reforms. At the same time, given the contexts of the 

case schools, this research both confirms and revises aspects of how “coherence crafting” itself is 

conceptualized.  

 

167 

Honig and Hatch (2004) identify the coherence challenge many districts and schools face 

during the current multiple reform wave. Their literature review identifies two categories of 

response, which they refer to as “outside in” and “inside out.” The former concerned “first- 

generation systemic and standards-based reforms [that] have addressed the challenge from the 

point of policy origin,” including district central offices; the latter relied upon “second-

generation systemic reforms [that] focused on solutions within schools.” Since they find both 

approaches wanting, these researchers instead argue for a combination approach. Based on the 

lessons they draw from the literature, Honig and Hatch (2004, p. 19) define coherence as a 

process of negotiation whereby school leaders and central office 
administrators continually craft the fit between external policy 
demands and schools’ own goals and strategies and use external 
demands strategically to inform and enable implementation of 
those goals and strategies. 

 
They then discuss and give a research basis for administrators to engage in bridging and 

buffering activities aimed at coherence crafting. In short, Honig and Hatch (2004) conceive of 

coherence crafting as occurring between the district and school levels, and as mainly consisting 

of administrator responses to external demands in relation to local goals. Some research since 

has focused agentic responses to higher level structural demands by actors at the school level, 

such as principals (e.g., Donaldson and Woulfin, 2018) or teachers (e.g., Robinson, 2012) or both 

(e.g., Chingara and Heystek, 2019; Stosich, 2018). 

The administrators responsible for the two case schools under study were ultimately 

trying to improve teaching and learning when they precipitated and addressed a coherence 

challenge arising from the regular, school year long implementation of an imposed system of 

teacher evaluation and a chosen model of PLCs. Both appreciated the problematic nature and 

likely effects of the external policy mandate, but both also saw an opportunity to structure the 

 

168 

evaluation/PLC relationship in implementation to advance a favored goal, each a different 

intermediate means to student achievement and school improvement. The alternative pairs of 

orientations themselves rested on divergent convictions about the way to change teacher practice, 

thereby improving teacher quality. Indeed, Indeed, Woodford’s control-external orientations 

seem akin to the first-generation response to a coherence challenge that Honig and Hatch (2004) 

identify, while Walker’s commitment-internal response seems a nod to their description of the 

second-generation response. In any event, Woodside and Walker administrators did attempt the 

kind of coherence crafting between levels that Honig and Hatch (2004) advocate, even though 

they utilized different bridging and buffering strategies. 

To be sure, Chapter 6 substantiates that administrator coherence crafting efforts 

consisting of interacting PLC and evaluation demands did influence teacher and PLC responses, 

with variation due to different structural orientations. But however necessary, such one-sided 

efforts, being administrative and structural only, were insufficient. They could not alone “inform 

and enable the implementation” of the local goals in a coherent manner. To the contrary, Chapter 

5 shows that teacher agentic responses played an indispensable role, made an essential 

contribution, to the crafting of coherence.  

Several significant implications follow from the extension of “coherence crafting” from 

administrators to teachers (and teacher groups like PLCs). First, if both administrators and 

teachers participate in coherence crafting, it necessarily depends on two categories of actor that 

vary in structural context and degree of agency. Successful coherence crafting, at least as seen 

through a structure-agency lens, must therefore attend to two sets of interacting structures and 

agentic responses—those of administrators and those of teachers. The sets themselves are 

 

169 

recursively inter-related since the results of the administrator interactions become the structures 

in the teacher interactions.  

Second, from their differing positions, teachers and administrators will not necessarily 

share a perspective either on what counts as “coherence” or what it is for. As Chapter 6 

discusses, administrator demands reflect their design and goal orientations, but as Chapter 5 

demonstrates, teachers act based on how they see the goals and benefits of responding. 

Coherence crafting is a doubly dynamic process of trying to sustainably align potentially 

divergent interests toward a mutually acceptable goal. Even if alignment occurs and coherence is 

achieved, they may be only at a superficial level or only for the short run. In Woodford, for 

example, the district was able to compel coherence in the PLC production and teacher use in 

evaluation of the Marzano scales, but one wonders how far that advances the district’s larger 

goal. While the Walker Math 10 PLC accepted the Dual Process opportunity regarding its 

analysis of student data, but many others apparently were not interested, despite its contribution 

to PLC/evaluation coherence. 

Third and last, a broader, more complex, actionable understanding of who must 

participate how to meet a coherence challenge may be more robust, it remains at least as 

susceptible in practice to shocks or other changes in organizational environment or relationships.  

An obvious example with respect to routinized PLCs and evaluation would be if substantial lay-

offs were required. Less extreme but still problematic in Walker’s context would be continued 

evaluation process or PLC work mandates from the central administration. Obviously, the 

pandemic has had a catastrophic effect on the implementation of all manner of reforms and 

whatever coherence challenges they engendered. Nonetheless, even in such circumstances, this 

study’s shows that, if it is to have a realistic chance, coherence crafting requires the participation 

 

170 

of teachers and must account for their responses, while administrators and school leaders must 

with intentionality provide for the positive interaction or integration of policy demands. 

This research develops a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of how teachers, 

individually in evaluation and collectively in PLCs, respond to the institutionalization of related 

policies, the demands of which have converged in the case schools. But further, the interacting 

demands in design and goal orientation, together with the adaptive responses in motivation and 

effect, can both address a coherence challenge. This study thus illuminates key features of a 

common coherence challenge, yields analytical insights into alternative efforts to mitigate the 

challenge in context, and points to ways for assessing how recursive demands and responses 

might converge toward or diverge from policy coherence in routinized implementation over 

time.  

Implications for Policymakers, Practitioners, and Researchers 

It seems inevitable that education policy prescriptions are altered in their implementation. 

In the agentic hands of street-level bureaucrats, even seemingly “simple,” straightforward 

policies can be transmogrified into something quite different from what was written, let alone 

intended. Like parents going from child to children, the challenge of implementing one reform 

with a balance of fidelity and flexibility is non-linearly compounded by the implementation of a 

second scheme meant to address the same problem through different means. In this study, the 

case schools’ routinized implementation of evaluation and PLC together engendered an ongoing 

coherence challenge in addition to the “ordinary” challenge of implementing one or the other 

alone. How the interacting policy demands and responses played out has abstractly similar but 

practically different implications for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers going forward. 

 

171 

Policymakers and local leaders contribute to policy churn (Hess, 1999). While that may 

be politically irresistible, they should when designing and initially implementing new policies try 

to anticipate and provide for demand relationships and interactions with other policies in a 

relevant range of existing local contexts. They should consider explicit and implicit dimensions 

of policies that may in principal or practice conflict or otherwise create coherence challenges. 

For example, the state legislation mandating the evaluation system to which Walker and 

Woodford were subject on its face stated basically incompatible formative and summative goals. 

In most districts, including Walker and Woodford, the formative goal was virtually impossible to 

implement from the beginning, which left the summative goal of individual accountability in 

direct conflict with the collective accountability and collaborative goals of PLCs. State 

policymakers could help mitigate potential incoherence were they to rebalance the formative 

with the summative components and/or give districts more discretion in emphasizing evaluation 

for formative purposes—for instance, allowing districts to choose from a greater range of 

evaluation tools or to modify the standard ones, or reducing the time-consuming requirements for 

administrators. At the very least, policymakers should avoid mandating evaluation components 

such as VAMs that likely exacerbate coherence challenges (Johnson, 2015). 

When a district and school practitioner leaders also act as policymakers—for example, 

when Woodford chose the Marzano tool and made its professional development plan—they 

might tailor their design and goal orientations, as well as their messaging, to anticipate teacher 

responses and to mitigate the effects of more abrupt changes in existing PLC or evaluation 

demands to which teachers are accustomed. Somewhat along the lines Mr. Creek was attempting 

in Walker, state and local policymakers might explicitly provide for the partial or complete 

integration of PLC and evaluation demands as several scholars have proposed (Jones, et al., 

 

172 

2016; Woodland and Mazur, 2015; see also Reinhorn, et al., 2017). The extent to which such 

moves would enhance coherence would depend on, among other things, the local history around 

reform adoption and implementation, availability of suitable professional learning, sensitivity to 

reliance interests, and staff and leadership composition and experience. 

Regarding policy design and implementation planning, this study suggests that local 

leaders and policymakers should be mindful that many stakeholder have some degree of agency 

in implementing and responding to policy demands and that their responses stem from interests, 

goals and values that do not necessarily match or align with those at other levels. Thus, district 

and school leaders should expect disparate efforts at coherence crafting at all levels and 

recognize the trade-offs among a range of demand locks and response keys. Demand and 

response interactions that may continue or arise after initial implementation and that may affect 

coherence, must be considered and addressed (Knapp, et al., 1998). Even absent formal 

integration of the demands, both case schools might review their professional development plans 

to make their related structures, anticipated responses, and ultimate goals clear and persuasive to 

teachers and administrators. 

Among those contributing to policy implementation under study here, it was of course 

teachers individually and in their PLCs that were this dissertation’s main subjects. Perhaps it is 

hardly surprising, then, that several implications for teachers may be the most suggestive, even 

counter-intuitive. This study shows that, when confronted with PLC and evaluation demands, 

teachers regularly exercise agency in response. Teachers’ interaction of responses in the 

application of adaptive response strategies contributes to the ongoing task of crafting coherence, 

even when schools may implement structures with opposing orientations that influence teacher 

 

173 

responses. Teacher agency, in short, has a very real effect on the processes and results of stable, 

routinized implementation.  

Yet, one implication of the context, opportunities and ways by which teachers can and do 

play agentic roles is that they could and should do more in the routine enactment of related 

PLC/evaluation to change both for the better going forward (Conley and Enomoto, 2005; Horn 

and Little, 2010; Feldman and Pentland, 2006). Particularly because all routines entail structural 

or “ostensive” and agentic or “performative” components (Feldman and Pentland, 2006; Horn 

and Little, 2010), the implication is that teachers could proactively “lean in” to opportunities for 

enhancing and extending the recursive interactions among the structural demands and agentic 

responses of PLC work and evaluation (Coburn, 2016). The intended effect would be to increase 

PLC/evaluation integration and coherence (Honig and Hatch, 2004), focusing both on effective 

professional learning and practice improvement (Reinhorn, et al. 2017; Taylor and Tyler, 2012; 

see also O’Day, 2002; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015). Teacher/PLC efforts along such lines could 

closely align with and reciprocally support administrators’ interests in effective, efficient, and 

coherent routines for teacher improvement. But more important for teachers’ work, these efforts 

could exemplify the benefits in routinized implementation of affording scope for teacher 

professionalism and giving impetus to professional accountability. 

Teachers might Individually and collectively as PLCs, teachers might start by 

recognizing their existing agency, and reconceptualizing how and why they might use it. In the 

present context, teacher agency can be a two-edged sword: teachers asserting a certain autonomy 

in pursuit of their interests at the same time assume a certain responsibility for the consequences. 

While teachers could opt for the stances of passive vessel, indifferent cog, or hapless victim, they 

could instead avoid or reject the unproductive, if understandable, rut of compliance-focused, 

 

174 

wholly reactive engagement with routinized demands like those of PLC and evaluation (see, e.g., 

Knapp, et al., 1998; Lane, 2020; Talbert, 2010). Teachers might then with intention foster 

PLC/evaluation integration and cohesion through agentic responses such as the following: 

  Teachers could reframe assigned PLC tasks or goals to serve or enable authentic PLC 

purposes. The Walker Math 10 PLC, for example, took the administrative 

requirement of a curriculum guide as an opportunity to revise the geometry essential 

standards and related common lesson plans and assessments. The PLCs in the Walker 

ELA Department treated a similar, albeit more onerous, assignment as an ad hoc task 

with which to comply. Mr. Roses saw the midyear review as an opportunity to 

employ the Lobbying adaptive response strategy with the superintendent, whereas 

Ms. Daniels framed it as an administrative failure of formative feedback. Woodford’s 

Ms. Laphroiag treated the preparation of the assigned ELA 11 narrative as a means to 

protect classroom teacher flexibility in the individual enactment of the common 

curriculum, whereas Ms. Macallen saw it as an administratively imposed waste of 

time. 

  Teachers could identify or propose new opportunities to directly integrate authentic 

PLC work or products with evaluation components or metrics. When the central 

administration in Walker required a new standard for determining student growth in 

individual teachers’ classes, the Math 10 PLC planned a Dual Process strategy for the 

collection and analysis of geometry students’ data for evaluation and PLC purposes. 

Teachers’ option in Walker to adopt a PLC goal as an individual evaluation goal also 

involved a Dual Process strategy such that participation in a collaborative process and 

outcome contributed to one’s summative performance rating (see Jones, et al., 2016; 

 

175 

Kimball, 2002). Departments or PLCs could advocate for similar opportunities with 

respect to the Selective Use strategy—for example, creating a bank of “PLC-

approved” formative assessment, which teachers might use during an observation to 

“automatically” satisfy elements of the evaluation tool. The Danielson evaluation tool 

includes a “Framework Cluster” of standards for “Professionalism,” the Marzano 

model has a domain comprising several standards for “Professional Responsibilities.” 

Particularly if administration encourages it, teachers in a PLC could legitimately 

submit evidence of effective collaboration and successful PLC work to support a 

higher effectiveness rating. 

  Teachers in PLCs could engage in professional development (PD) activities that 

relate to evaluation components. For example, PLCs could undertake book studies, 

lesson studies, or classroom observations around the Danielson or Marzano 

frameworks, not as evaluation tools, but as clarifying and helpful instructional 

taxonomies (which was their original purpose). Ms. Daniels and Mr. Bulliet described 

how their Math 10 PLC arranged to observe the same lesson on the same day in each 

of the PLC’s three members’ respective class. Ms. Dalmore in Woodford describe 

how her collaboration time PLC engaged in this sort of work, but it was a larger, 

cross-disciplinary group that did not focus on ELA curricula or pedagogy. Ms. Trace 

recalled benefiting from the Walker PD on the Danielson framework, but it was 

conducted as basically a “one-shot” whole school and district PD when the district 

adopted the Danielson tool.  Teachers might in addition decide to familiarize 

themselves with the research underlying such frameworks, or research related to other 

components of evaluation— student data analysis, for example. Teachers could 

 

176 

identify gaps in their professional learning which PLCs (or PLCs meeting as 

departments) might address. Mr. Roses, for instance, expressed a strong interest in PD 

on accurate and effective student data collection and analysis, which would be a 

highly relevant topic for the Walker Math 10 PLC. Similarly, PLCs could engage in 

inquiry around self-chosen problems of practice and their relations to the relevant 

instructional framework. 

Obviously, some PLC activities would require the approval and support of 

administration, which may have a strong interest in doing so. Besides enthusiastic 

permission for the initiative, Mr. Creek’s support for the Math 10 teachers’ classroom 

observations mentioned above consisted of two half day substitute teachers. It was 

nonetheless the sort of PLC professional learning activity that he did ask the teachers 

to present on their experience to the rest of the staff, which they were happy to do. 

Administrations without much additional significant monetary cost might likewise 

encourage and facilitate some flexibility and differentiation in assigned or expected 

PLC tasks or products based on specific PLC contexts, needs and goals. PLC-driven 

initiatives, innovations and experiments might be encouraged and results promoted, at 

least on a limited or pilot basis. But even on their own, departments and PLCs in 

many schools, including Walker and Woodside, could reconfigure the time and other 

resources they already control to facilitate skill and content specific PD. Further, 

especially with administrative authorization, teachers could include their PLC-based 

PD in response to the professionalism domain of the evaluation tool. 

  Teachers in general, and especially teacher leaders, could prioritize the use of 

strategies like Lobbying and Collective Validation whenever possible in interactions 

 

177 

with non-PLC colleagues and administrators. Both Walker and Woodford focus 

teachers had several opportunities during the evaluation process to use both, although 

only some like Ms. Laphroiag and Mr. Roses did so. Beyond increasing the individual 

use of these strategies, teachers in PLCs and departments might coordinate the 

subjects and “pitches” such uses, as for example, when Ms. Forester in her midyear 

review meeting and related questionnaire advocated for a reduction in PLC time 

devoted to administrative matters, or the Math Department’s desire to switch from the 

required DuFour videos to another form of PD. An approach like this might be 

especially effective were it combined with the further integration of PLC/evaluation 

PD, processes (e.g., student data analysis) and products (e.g., curriculum guides).     

            Furthermore, there are in addition other forums where teacher leaders could 

apply the strategies on behalf of teachers and PLCs. For example, at Woodford, there 

were the annual August meeting of department heads with building and central 

administrators to determine PLC tasks, products and goals. The Woodford principal, 

Mr. Regal, also conducted regular meetings of administrators and teacher leaders. 

Walker’s principal, Mr. Creek, started a PLC Guidance Committee, and he had a 

practice of meeting with specific PLCs and department heads at their request.   

Building on existing opportunities and strategies, the list above reflects the kinds of 

agentic responses teachers in PLCs might devise and execute to their own and their schools’ 

benefit. The general approach might counter the deleterious effect of routine external 

accountability demands that Wills and Sandholtz (2009) in a different accountability context first 

identified as “constrained professionalism,” and assert, or even promote, teacher professionalism 

in learning, performance, and accountability (Louis, et al., 1996; Talbert and McLaughlin, 1996). 

 

178 

In schools like Walker and Woodford, teachers have a foot in the door; now they need to 

purposefully walk through it. 

With respect to the implications of this work for researchers, this study begins to fill a 

gap in the literature, which currently has little to say about the interaction of multiple policy 

demands and related responses. Its design, analysis and results point to potential future research 

addressing similar questions in similar contexts. Most closely linked to the instant research, 

future research might investigate such questions as these: To what extent, if any at all, may the 

typology proposed here be generalized? Might other typologies of teacher adaptive response 

strategies, based on other dimensions, better fit or explain the interactions of and responses to 

convergent policies? Similar research questions might be asked about how this research 

interprets the nature and effects of structural demand design and goal orientations. For example, 

which orientations are more effective in the longer run in sustaining the intended teacher 

responses and achieving the larger goal? Are there other orientations that might work better in 

particular contexts with particular goals?   

More generally, researchers might examine the routinized implementation of other 

accountability or teacher improvement policies for how variation in the integration of demands 

compares or relates to variation in teacher response adaptations. Building on this study’s 

application of a structure-agency approach, researchers might uncover other mechanisms or 

microprocesses by which teachers contribute to the crafting of coherence, whether along with or 

in opposition to the efforts of administrators or other higher-level leaders. Increased knowledge 

along such lines might facilitate the investigation of whether and how changes in coherence 

through teacher participation relate to teacher and school improvement.  

 

179 

Another possibility that perhaps warrants investigation is the presence of other factors 

that significantly influence how and why individual teachers and PLCs exercise their agency to 

compartmentalize or punctuate responses that hinder or enhance coherence. In this study, for 

instance, some evidence hinted that probationary or early career teachers more frequently saw 

and acted upon punctuation opportunities and adaptive response strategies as compared to more 

veteran colleagues.  

Finally, future scholarly work to broaden and deepen research in this field could also help 

inform policymakers and practitioners seeking to promote coherence (or mitigate incoherence) in 

multiple policy implementation. Longitudinal studies might elucidate how and why coherence 

crafting, a dynamic process after all, evolves over time in multiple organizational levels and 

among various stakeholder groups. Do better coordinated coherence efforts over multiple 

iterations contribute to implementation fidelity, policy sustainability, and/or desirable policy 

outcomes? 

Limitations 

 

The limitations of this research are mainly inherent in the qualitative nature of its 

methodology in design and implementation. To begin, given the study’s purposeful sampling 

strategy, at no level—district, school, PLC or individual—were participants randomly selected; 

none is necessarily representative of the larger population. Further, since at each level 

individuals voluntarily agreed to participate, often with administration support, the relatively 

small sample this study comprehends, may differ in significant ways from another potential 

group of participants. To the extent possible, I tried to address this limitation by taking those 

steps discussed above to strengthen this study’s external validity. This includes the mutually 

reinforcing design elements of “how” research questions calling for explanatory answers, a 

 

180 

multiple case study with several embedded units, and the replication logic of the purposeful 

sampling strategy. I emphasize in particular the proper and fruitful focus on explaining processes 

emerging from, and seeking analytical generalizations about, varying agentic responses to 

varying structural demands of evaluation and PLC (Maxwell, 2014; Firestone, 1993). 

 

This study’s sampling strategy limits the generalizability of its findings in another way, 

one stemming from the necessarily delimited context of the case schools. For reasons discussed 

in Chapter 4, the sampling strategy sought case high schools implementing routinized systems of 

teacher evaluation and PLCs that were “typical” or “middle of the road” with respect to common 

contextual characteristics. The strategy avoided both especially high and low performing 

schools, as well as those subject to high accountability pressure, financial distress, or other 

special externally determined statuses. Findings based on the resulting sample might have 

limited generalizability in “non-typical,” but important contexts. Contexts characterized by high 

accountability pressures might be of particular concern because a large proportion of 

contemporary education reform involves the application of strong accountability policies (e.g., 

Wood, 2007). 

 

The external validity of case study research is strongest in cases like those in the actual 

sample. The sampling strategy of Chapter 4 suggests that many other schools are “typical” in the 

case school sense: school level accountability, teacher evaluation, and PLCs are routinely 

implemented in the absence of significantly greater than average accountability pressure. Years 

of data show that teacher evaluation is very rarely a high-stakes threat to the vast majority of 

teachers. Nor do school level accountability systems seem to produce realistic threats of 

significant sanction for many schools like the case schools here. Nonetheless, schools like 

Walker and Woodford must comply with accountability mandate to maintain or increase 

 

181 

measured outcomes, deal with ongoing coherence challenges, and devote resources to teacher 

and school improvement efforts. Mandates for teacher evaluation and school level accountability 

have been shown to result in significant effects even in the absence of truly high stakes, whether 

by design (Taylor and Tyler, 2012; Thiel, Schweigher, and Bellmann, 2017), or by schools’ 

attaining sufficient performance levels (Lane, 2020; Marsh, et al., 2017; Johnson, et al., 2018; 

Tichnor-Wagner, et al., 2016). 

Other schools and teachers are subject to different demand structures, and certainly some 

are more susceptibilities to external pressures. Cleary there are school contexts where powerful 

influences operate such that the particular processes and outcomes found at Walker and 

Woodford would be unlikely to occur. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that some degree of 

generalization from this study’s broader findings may be warranted, even in contexts with high 

accountability or similar external pressures.  

This research examines a general problem for educators across accountability contexts: 

What happens when divergent policies like PLC and teacher evaluation are implemented 

together, thereby engendering a coherence challenge? The literature on the strategies employed 

to address the problem do not depend on presence or absence of any particular external policy 

demand, but rather on certain processes between a district and its school in the form of external 

policy demands (Honig and Hatch, 2004; Knapp, et al., 1998; see Louis and Robinson, 2012). 

Further, while empirical research on the implementation of multiple reforms shows variation in 

the actions and results of coherence crafting efforts (whether or not using that terminology), 

researchers have nonetheless found consistent patterns of demand/response interactions by the 

policy targets that do not appear to depend on variation in the degree of accountability pressure 

at the individual or school levels  (Louis and Robinson, 2012; Marsh et al., 2017; Reinhorn, et 

 

182 

al., 2017; Reinhorn and Johnson, 2015; Stosich, 2018). This literature suggests that a context 

including high accountability pressure does not preclude all external validity for this study’s 

basic findings about the participants (administrators, teachers) and processes (paired design-goal 

orientations, adaptive response strategies) that can contribute to crafting coherence.  

To be sure, if significant accountability pressure (or perceived pressure) were introduced 

to the case schools’ contexts, it might very well affect the specifics of how teachers interact and 

adapt their responses to related PLC/evaluation demands. External validity may be especially 

restricted for the more detailed aspects of punctuated compartmentalization or the four adaptive 

response strategies identified here. Perhaps compartmentalization is highly susceptible to certain 

threats of accountability sanction, or maybe external pressures adversely affect the opportunities 

for or content of teacher adaptive strategies like Lobbying or Selective Use. One could imagine 

external pressure so pervasive and sustained as to overwhelm or crowd out all other agentic 

considerations, structural relationships and interaction processes, including those identified and 

explained in this study.  

But for such relatively extreme cases, however, the generalizability limitation is more 

ambiguous, for it depends on the nature and degree of effect that any external pressure might 

have. For one example, the effect on PLCs of school level accountability might differ 

significantly from the effect of high individual evaluation pressure. Another example: if 

accountability pressure rendered true compartmentalization effectively impossible, would that 

necessarily end teacher punctuation that involved similar timing, interaction processes and 

adaptive responses—say, a recognizable but modified form of Lobbying or PLC product for 

Selective Use?  

 

183 

Although these examples ultimately pose empirical questions for future research building 

on this study, the uncertainty about external accountability effects may be due to the persistence 

in alternative contexts of more fundamental features of the instant research context. These might 

include, first, that in the face of an ongoing coherence challenge, teachers subject to related PLC/ 

evaluation demands have opportunities and agency to interact and adapt their responses within 

administrator implemented structures. Moreover, facing the same coherence challenge, 

administrators implement related PLC/evaluation structures as a means to goals larger than 

accountability compliance. These contextual facts may obtain whether or not external pressure 

exerts some degree of influence on the case-specific demand structures and teacher responses. 

Thus, the research findings here that identify and explain the kinds of processes involving 

demand/response interactions, the kinds of teacher actions contributing to coherence crafting, 

and the kinds of administrator design and goal orientations may be of more general applicability 

in some alternative contexts that involve significant accountability pressure. 

A second kind of limitation relates to internal validity. Although a great deal of 

observational data was collected, it is of course finite. The data collected does not capture all the 

potentially relevant PLC interactions or any of the administrator/teacher interactions involving 

evaluation. It could be, then, that behavior during relevant but unobserved occasions might differ 

from what the observed evidence shows. Even the observational data that was collected involves 

two related limitations. First, the happenstance of which focus teachers attended which PLC 

meetings may have affected the nature and content of the observations. Second, my presence 

may have affected focus teacher and PLC conduct due to the well-known “Hawthorne Effect.” 

(At Woodford, the presence of interns may have affected the behavior of focus teachers as well.)  

 

184 

I employed several strategies to mitigate these potential internal validity threats. First of 

all, I with intention conducted observations during the most likely times the focus PLCs would 

be meeting separately. I was able to take these best opportunities, spread over more than five 

months based upon the formal schedule of departmental PLC time combined with focus 

teachers’ information about the departmental agenda and their grade-level/content PLC plans. 

(Recall that at both case high schools, during formally designated PLC time, the focus PLCs 

would meet once their departmental business had concluded.) At Woodford, but for a content 

time PLC meeting before students returned in September, I observed all the scheduled grade-

level/content focus PLC meetings during the first semester, as well as the first such meeting of 

the second semester. Because there were two focus PLCs at Walker, I more-or-less alternated 

observations, depending on advance knowledge about the scheduled departmental work. I 

nonetheless observed for a significant number and duration of ELA 10 and Math 10 meetings, 

especially since both invited me to observe voluntary meetings, or voluntarily extended time for 

meeting. These invitations too are one indication of the rapport I built with the focus teachers, 

whose individual and collective conduct was remarkably consistent and persistent over the 

observations and in other settings (e.g., informal chatting, interviews). I did not observe any 

indication of unusual or inconsistent behavior, including that referencing or alluding to my 

presence. To the contrary, observed behavior—and so it seems likely unobserved behavior in the 

same routinized contexts—was consistent with the other sources I used to triangulate among all 

the collected data. Finally, observational data plays more supporting, corroborating, and 

triangulating roles with respect to research findings; no finding depends solely, or even 

principally, on observational data.  

 

185 

These limitations notwithstanding, this research, through its multiple case study design, 

diverse data sources, and iterative analytical techniques, gives substantial insight into both 

interacting elements of its agency-structure framework—i.e., how teacher responses to PLC and 

evaluation demands adaptively interacted, how those adaptive responses were shaped by the way 

those structures were related. The well-supported findings discussed in the next two chapters 

identify and explain non-idiosyncratic agentic strategies and structural characteristics and 

orientations that may apply in typical school contexts, particularly since institutionalized teacher 

evaluation systems and PLC models often share interacting components and incentivize like 

teacher responses. At the least, the results provide a basis for hypothesizing and testing in further 

research, even in research contexts where other factors, such as substantial accountability 

pressures, may independently influence outcomes.  

Conclusion 

This dissertation takes a structure-agency approach to the empirical investigation of on an 

ongoing coherence challenge stemming from the implementation together of PLCs and 

evaluation. The convergence of similar ends, differing means, and shared periods of routinized 

re-enactment results in a complex of inter-relationships among two agentic responses, which can 

influence each other, and two structures, which can interact with each other. A significant 

contribution of this dissertation follows from its identification and description of how teachers 

adapt their otherwise separate responses to the related demands evaluation and PLC.  

This contribution leads to another: a broader, more elaborated conception of the 

participants who engage in and mechanisms constituting “crafting coherence” (Honig and Hatch, 

2008) between the two widespread, well-established teacher quality policies. By showing that 

teachers in PLCs can and do participate in meeting the coherence challenge, this study extends 

 

186 

our understanding of who crafts coherence and how. Teacher coherence crafting involves 

dynamically adapting responses through the application of distinct strategies developed within 

the related structures of evaluation and PLC. Thus, teacher agentic responses to multiple teacher 

quality reforms, regardless of source or intention, will from the bottom up interact with the 

structural efforts to attain coherence at the school and district levels. Finally, this dissertation 

completes the structure-agency recursive dynamic by examining how the related structural 

demands of PLC and evaluation, which rest on particular administrative design and goal 

orientations, will in turn shape teacher adaptive response strategies. Next year the same routine, 

but not necessarily the same demand structures and agentic response will play out again, except 

that … 

The covid-19 pandemic struck Michigan shortly after the principal data collection for this 

dissertation concluded. The pandemic upended virtually everything about schooling, including 

teacher evaluation and PLCs, the routinized implementation of which was and remains in a sort 

of policy limbo. Nevertheless, these policies are too embedded to be negated completely. 

Whether they persist in altered form or re-emerge in similar form after the pandemic comes 

under control, the implementation of teacher evaluation and teacher collaboration policies will 

present coherence challenges that administrators and teachers will have to manage, most likely 

through related structures and interacting responses. Thus, while the recognition of this study’s 

contribution to our knowledge of teacher quality policy implementation may be delayed, it may 

not, I trust, be indefinitely denied.       

 

 

 

 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPENDICES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

188 

 

APPENDIX A 

Focus Teacher/PLC Member Survey 

 

In accordance with your informed consent form, your name, the name of your school, the name of your 
district, and your responses to the following questions will be kept strictly confidential. You may skip any 
question, or part of a question, that you do not wish to answer; however, we hope that you will candidly 
and fully answer as many questions as possible. Thank you. 

 
 

Name: ______________________________________ 
 

 

       Date: ________________________ 

For each item, please indicate your choice or answer by putting the 

appropriate number (1-4 or 1-5) from the stated scale in the appropriate 

blank or by filling in the appropriate blank or space, as indicated in the item. 

 
 
1.  Pleases indicate the level of effectiveness formal teacher evaluation provides with respect to each  
     of the following: 
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  
1 = No or very low effectiveness, 2 = low effectiveness, 3 = moderate effectiveness,  
      4 = high effectiveness, 5 = very high effectiveness 
 
______ Formative assessment for teachers’ professional learning and improvement 
______ Summative assessment of teachers’ effectiveness and quality  
______ Summative assessments for employment and staffing decisions (for example, retention,  
             tenure, lay-off, dismissal) 
______ Motivation for teachers to improve 
______ Compliance with district and state mandates 
______ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________ 
 
 
2.  Please indicate the level of influence each of the following has on how you participate in your  
     formal evaluation: 
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  

1 = No or very low influence, 2 = low influence, 3 = moderate influence,  

4 = high influence, 5 = very high influence 

 
______ The need to comply with evaluation requirements and expectations 
______ Your evaluator relationship and interactions 
______ Your informal interactions with other teachers and professional friends 
______ The nature and value of the feedback you receive 
______ Your personal experiences and beliefs 
______ Your grade/course level PLC tasks, experiences, and interactions 
______ Other (please specify): _________________________________________________. 
 
 

 

189 

3.  Pleases indicate the level of effectiveness grade/course level PLCs provide with respect to each of  
     the following: 
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  
1 = No or very low effectiveness, 2 = low effectiveness, 3 = moderate effectiveness,  
      4 = high effectiveness, 5 = very high effectiveness 
      
______ Authentically collaborative teacher professional learning and improvement 
______ Development of effective curricula, classroom practices and assessments 
______ Formation of collective norms and practices for student learning  
______ Motivation for teachers to improve 
______ Compliance with school and district mandates 
______ Other (please specify): __________________________________________________ 
 
 
4.  Please indicate the level of influence each of the following has on your participation in your  
     grade/course level PLC: 
    Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  

5 = No or very low influence, 2 = low influence, 3 = moderate influence,  

4 = high influence, 5 = very high influence 
 
______ The need to comply with PLC requirements and expectations 
______ Your PLC relationships and interactions 
______ The nature and value of your PLC work 
______ Your informal interactions with other teachers and professional friends 
______ Your personal experiences and beliefs 
______ Your formal evaluation requirements, experiences and interactions 
______ Other (please specify): ___________________________________________ 
 
 
5.  Please indicate the level of influence each of the following has on your how your grade/course  
     level PLC functions as a group: 
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  
1 = No or very low influence, 2 = low influence, 3 = moderate influence,  
4 = high influence, 5 = very high influence 
 
______ The goals, tasks and expectations set for your grade/course level PLC’s work 
______ The administrative oversight and supervision of your grade/course level PLC’s work 
______ The individual personalities and characteristics of your grade/course level PLC’s  
             members 
______ The collective interactions and learning that occur during your grade/course level      
             PLC’s work 
______ The need of all your grade/course level PLC members to complete their own formal  
             evaluation 
______ Other (please specify): ___________________________________________ 
 
 

 

190 

6.  Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:  
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree 

 
______ Formal evaluation does not significantly affect my collaboration or other interactions  
             with my grade/course level PLC’s members. 
______ Formal evaluation does not significantly affect the conduct or results of my  
             grade/course level PLC’s work. 
______ Formal evaluation does not significantly affect the meaningfulness or usefulness of  
             my grade/course level PLC’s work. 
______ Formal evaluation does not put significantly more pressure for accountability on me  
             than my grade/course level PLC’s work. 
______ Formal evaluation does not motivate me to improve significantly more than my  
             grade/course level PLC’s work. 
 
 
7.  Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:  
     Please fill in each blank with the appropriate number:  
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree 
 
______ I care more about my formal evaluation than I do about my grade/course level PLC’s  
             work. 
______ I apply more attention and effort to my formal evaluation than to my grade/course level  
             PLC’s work. 
______ The results from the time, attention and effort I devote to my formal evaluation are worth  
             more to me than the results from the time, attention and effort I devote to my  
             grade/course level PLC’s work. 
______ The requirement that all teachers undergo annual formal evaluations seems to encourage  
             competition among teachers, including those in my grade/course level PLC. 
 
 
8.  Including the current school year, how many years have you been a teacher?  
     Please fill in the blanks. ______ years    In this district? ______ years    In this school? ______ years 
 
 
9.  In the space provided, please indicate your current teaching assignment. 
     __________________________________________________________________________________ 
     __________________________________________________________________________________ 
     __________________________________________________________________________________ 
     __________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
10.  Have you taught all the classes in your current assignment before the current school year?  
       Please fill in the appropriate blank(s). 
 
______ Yes 

 

191 

______ No—please specify the percentage or proportion as a fraction of your assignment that involves 
class(es) you have not taught before the current school year: _____________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________. 
 
 
11.  In the blank provided, please indicate the main academic department you belong to in this school  
       during the current school year. ______________________________________________________ 
 
 
12.  In the blank provided, please indicate the main grade level PLC you belong to in your main  
      department in this school during the current school year. ________________________________ 
 
 
13.  What is your highest post-secondary degree? Please put an “X” in the appropriate blank. 
 
______ Bachelors 
______ Masters 
______ Education Specialist 
______ Doctorate 
______Other highest education degree (Please specify: ______________________________) 
 
 
14.  With what gender do you identify? Please put an “X” in the appropriate blank. 
 
______ Female 
______ Male 
______ Non-binary/other identification 
 
 
15.  What is your race/ethnicity? Please put an “X” in the appropriate blank. 
 
______ African American/Black 
______ Caucasian/White 
______ American Indian/Native American 
______ Hispanic/Latinx 
______ Asian or Pacific Islander 
______ Other or multiple race/ethnicity 
 
 
16.  Please indicate your age. Please fill in the blank. ______ years 
 
 

This concludes the questionnaire.  

Thank you for your time, effort and thoughtful participation. 

 

 

192 

APPENDIX B 

Focus Teacher/PLC Member First Interview Protocol 

[Note: The information that answers much of Question 1  

below is covered by the focus teacher questionnaire.] 

 

1.  Please give me some background about your teaching in the district and high school: 
a.  How long have you been a teacher? Taught in the district? At the high school? 
b.  What is your current assignment? Have you had the same or similar assignment in 

the past? What is your main department and grade level PLC? 

c.  What is it like teaching in your school? What are the main challenges? How 

would you describe the school’s climate and culture? 

2.  Please describe your most recent (last year’s) annual evaluation from start to finish. How 

did your evaluation go, and how did it work out for you? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  What do you like and dislike about it? How might it be improved? 
b.  How would you describe your relationship and interactions with your evaluator? 
c.  What do you think of the time, attention and effort you devoted to your 

evaluation? How would you describe its value or usefulness? 

d.  Did the evaluation process and result go as you expected? 
e.  What, if any, difference in your evaluation process have you experienced or do 

you expect this year?  

3.  What influences how you approach and participate in the evaluation process? Could you 

give me an example of each influence? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  The goals, components and requirements of the process? 
b.  Your prior experiences and beliefs? 
c.  Your informal interactions with other teachers and professional friends? 
d.  Administrative leadership and support? 
e.  Your grade level PLC relationships and work?  
f.  Your participation in district/school events—e.g., staff meetings, other PLC times, 

other professional development activities? 

4.  Has your participation in the evaluation process affected how you work or interact with 

other teachers and administrators? If so, could you give me an example? 
Possible probes/prompts: An example from: 

a.  how you get or give help, make professional decisions, or enact your own 

practice? 

b.  your informal collegial interactions? 
c.  your interactions with your grade level PLC? 
d.  your interactions in formal work settings, such as professional development 

activities, staff meetings, department meetings, etc.? 

5.  Please describe your most recent (last year’s) grade level PLC? How did your grade level 

PLC’s work go, and how did it work out for you? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

193 

 

 

 

 

 

a.  What did you like and dislike about it? How might it be improved? 
b.  How would you describe your relationships and interactions with your grade level 

PLC? 

c.  What do you think of the time, attention and effort you devoted to your grade 

level PLC? How would you describe its value or usefulness of your grade level 
PLC work? 

d.  Did your grade level PLC’s work and result go as you expected? 
e.  What, if any, difference in your grade level PLC work and interactions have you 

experienced or do you anticipate this year? 

6.  What influences how you approach and participate in your grade level PLC? Could you 

give me an example of each influence? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  The required goals, tasks and processes? 
b.  Your experiences and beliefs? 
c.  Your informal interactions with other teachers and professional friends? 
d.  Administrative leadership and support?  
e.  Your participation in the evaluation process? 
f.  Your participation in district/school events—e.g., staff meetings, other PLC times, 

professional development activities? 

7.  Could you tell me about a time when your work with one—evaluation or grade level 

PLC—connected or overlapped with your work in the other? For example, a time when: 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  You applied what you learned from one to the work of other? 
b.  You used what you produced in one in the work of the other? 
c.  You brought up something from one in a discussion of the other? 
d.  You received help in one and shared it in the other? 

8.  Do you think that how you participate in the evaluation process and how you participate 

with your grade level PLC affect or relate to each other in some way? If so, could you 
give me an example?   
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How your approach or mindset toward one affects your approach or mindset 

b.  How your cooperation or competition in one affects your cooperation or 

toward the other? 

competition in the other? 

c.  How your goals for one affect your goals for the other? 
d.  How you allocate, direct or redirect, your time, attention and effort from one to 

the other? 

9.  Thinking about how evaluations and grade level PLCs now work and have previously 

worked in your school, does the way one is or has been done or help or hinder your 
current participation in the other? Could you give me an example of how one helps or 
hinders the other? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

194 

 

 

 

 

 

a.  Does the way one is or has been done affect individual or group professional 

learning in the other? 

b.  Does the way one is or has been done affect competition or cooperation in the 

other? 

c.  Does the way one is or has been done affect individual or group compliance in the 

other? 

d.  Does the way one is done or has been done affect how time, attention and energy 

are devoted to or spent on the other? 

10. How would describe the overall relationship between your responsibilities, goals, work, 

and expectations concerning your evaluation and those of your grade level PLC? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  Completely separate and independent? 
b.  Consistent and complementary? 
c.  Opposed and conflicting? 
d.  Other description/characterization? 

11. Concluding questions: 

a.  Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else is important for me to understand about 

your participation in the evaluation process or your grade level PLC? 

b.  Would you like to add or clarify anything about the topics we’ve discussed? 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

195 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 

Focus Teacher/PLC Member Second Interview Protocol 

APPENDIX C 

1.   First Semester Generally 

a.  Overall how did the first semester go for you? 
b.  Any particular personal/professional goals or expectations for the second 

semester? 

2.  Evaluation 

 

 

a.  Did you have any personal/professional goals or expectations for the evaluation 

process this past semester? What did you want or hope to get out of it? 

b.  What is the current status of your evaluation—that is, what steps have been 

completed? 

c.  How has it gone for you so far?  

i.  Did anything happen that has affected how you carried out your job 

roles/duties (unusual, unexpected, challenging, surprising)?  

ii.  Did anything happen that has affected your prior attitude or beliefs about 

evaluation, including its value or usefulness? 

iii.  Did anything happen that has affected how you participate in your grade-        
level PLC, interact with your PLC colleagues or make use of your PLC    

                              work? 

d.  What steps are left to complete in your evaluation in the second semester? Do you 

have any particular goals or expectations around its completion? 

 

 

3.  Grade-Level PLC during Departmental Content Time 

a.  Did you have any personal/professional goals or expectations for your grade-level 

PLC work this past semester? What did you want or hope to get out of it? 

b.  What is the current status of your grade-level PLC work—that is, what steps have 

been completed? 

c.  How has it gone for you so far?  

i.  Did anything happen that has affected how you carried out your job 

roles/duties (unusual, unexpected, challenging, surprising)?  

ii.  Did anything happen that has affected your prior attitude or beliefs about 

grade-level PLC work, including its value or usefulness? 

iii.   Did anything happen that has affected how you participate in your 

evaluation, interact with your evaluator or make use of some aspect of 
your evaluation? 

d.  How would you describe how your grade-level PLC worked as a group during the 

first semester? Generally and in terms of: 

i.  Achieving or satisfying PLC goals/expectations? 
ii.  Collaboration and professional learning? 
iii.   Collegiality and collegial support? 

e.  Do you think your grade-level PLC tasks, interactions or results were affected by 

the evaluation process that was going for individual teachers? 

f.  What is left to complete in your grade-level PLC work in the second semester? 

Do you have any particular goals or expectations around its completion? 

196 

4.  Evaluation/PLC Connections? 

a.  On reflection, do you see any connection or relationship between your evaluation 

and grade-level PLC work in how you think about, participate in, or carry out 
your obligations in each? 

b.  Was any connection or relationship between the two required or encouraged by 

administration? 

c.  Did you or PLC develop any connection or relationship? 
d.  Since the goals and potential value of evaluation and PLCs lie in teacher learning 

and development, if weak or nonexistent relationship or connection, why? How 
might each be modified or improved to develop positive and useful connections? 

 
      5A. [Dist/HS #1 Only] Collaboration Time PLC 

a.   Which such PLC did you belong first semester? Second semester? 
b.   How would you compare the work, interactions and value of the two kinds of    
                        PLC in which you participate? Which more worthwhile to you, participating in  
                        which would you rather spend time? 

c.  Do you see any connection or relationship between your evaluation and 

collaboration-time PLC work in how you think about, participate in, or carry out 
your obligations in each? 

 
       5B. [Dist/HS #2 Only] Mid-Year Review Meeting 

a.  What can you tell me about the “Mid-Year Review,” which I understand is a new 
thing this year? For example, who/what is involved, what is its purpose, how is it 
being conducted, and with what result?  

                            [Ask about any documentation, including a list of potential questions, any      
                            other materials, for preparation, review or other use during any meeting.] 

b.  What is the status of your own mid-year review preparation, meeting or results? 
That is, what’s been done and what’s left to do with respect to it? How did it go, 
or how do you expect it to go? Why? 

c.  What, if any connection, was given or do you perceive between the mid-year 

review and your evaluation? The review and your PLC work?  

d.  Has or might the mid-year review affect how you approach or participate in your 
evaluation during the rest of the year? Same question for your PLC work for the 
rest of the year? 

 

 
 
 

 

6.  Concluding Question 

a.  Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else is important for me to understand about 
your participation in the evaluation process or your grade level PLC? Would you 
like to add or clarify anything about either interview or any observation? 

b.  Do you have any questions or suggestions for me? 

 
 

 

197 

Building Administrator (Principal, Assistant Principal) Interview Protocol 

APPENDIX D 

1.  Confirm name of administrator and position/title: 

 

a.  How long have you served in your current position? 
b.  How would you describe your current position, including its main roles and 

responsibilities (especially with respect to teacher evaluations and PLCs)? 

 

2.  How does teacher evaluation work in your school? 

           Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  What are your goals for teacher evaluation? 
b.  What decisions do you make about teacher evaluation, and what roles do building 

administrators play in teacher evaluation? 

c.  How do you provide leadership and support for your teachers’ evaluations? 
d.  How do building administrators use the results of teachers’ evaluations? 

 

 

 

 

3.  What are the challenges and effects of teacher evaluation in your school? 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How would you describe a successful teacher evaluation? 
b.  What are the main concerns your teachers have about evaluation, and how does 

building administration address those concerns? 

c.  How do you think evaluation affects your teachers? Your relationships with your 

teachers? Your school’s professional culture? 
d.  How might teacher evaluation be improved? 

4.  How do content time PLCs, including grade level PLCs within departments, work in your 

school? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  What are your goals for these PLCs? 
b.  What decisions do you make about these PLCs, and what roles do building 

administrators play in these PLCs? 

c.  How do you provide leadership and support for these PLCs? 
d.  How do building administrators use the results of the work of these PLCs? 

5.  What are the challenges of content time PLCs in your school? 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How would you describe a content time PLC that works effectively? 
b.  What are the main concerns your teachers have about these PLCs, and how do 

building administrators address those concerns? 

c.  How do you think these PLCs affect your teachers? Your relationships with your 

teachers? Your school’s professional culture? 

d.  How might the work of these PLCs be improved? 

 

6.  What connection, if any, exists between the conduct of teacher evaluations and the work 

of these PLCs in your school? 
 

198 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  Is there an explicitly expected or mandated connection? 
b.  Is there a custom or practice that makes a connection? 

7.  Do you think teachers in your school see or experience a connection between teacher 
evaluation and content time PLCs? If so, how would you describe it with a couple of 
examples? 

a.  Can you describe an occasion when something about a teacher’s content time 

PLC work came up during their evaluation? 

b.  Can you describe an occasion when a teacher’s participation in their evaluation 

seemed affected by their content time PLC work? 

c.   Can you describe an occasion when something about their evaluation came up 

during a teacher’s content time PLC work? 

d.  Can you describe an occasion when a teacher’s participation in their content time 

PLC seemed affected by their evaluation? 

8.  How would you compare teacher evaluations and content time PLCs in your school: 

a.  Do you see or experience any connection between your roles in each? 
b.  How would you compare the benefits of each to your teachers? Why? 
c.  How would you compare the significance of the impact of each on teachers’ work 

or performance? The school’s culture and performance? Why? 

9.  Concluding questions: 

a.  Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else is important for me to understand about 

your school’s teacher evaluations or content time PLCs? 

b.  Do you wish to add or clarify anything about the topics we’ve discussed? 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

199 

 

 

 

 

District Central Office Administrator Interview Protocol 

APPENDIX E 

1.  Confirm name of administrator and position/title: 

 

a.  How long have you served in your current position? 
b.  How would you describe your current position, including its main roles and 

responsibilities (especially with respect to teacher evaluations and PLCs)? 

2.  Please describe when and how your district adopted and implemented: 

a.  the current teacher evaluation system. 
b.  the current system of PLCs, particularly content time departmental PLCs with 

grade level PLCs. 

3.  How does teacher evaluation work in your district’s high schools? 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  What are the main goals for teacher evaluation? 
b.  What are the main components of the teacher evaluation system, and who is 

responsible for completing each component? 

c.  How does your district use the results of high school teacher evaluation? 
d.  What, if anything, is different about teacher evaluation this school year? 

4.  What does your district do to provide leadership and support for high school teacher 

evaluation? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  For building administrators? 
b.  For teachers? 

5.  What challenges does high school teacher evaluation present to your district? 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How do you think the teacher evaluation affects your district’s high school? Its 

administrators, teachers, professional culture? 
b.  How might teacher evaluation be improved? 

6.  How do content time PLCs work in your district’s high school? 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  What are the goals of high school PLCs? Assigned tasks? 
b.  How are high school PLCs organized and run? 

7.  What does your district do to provide leadership and support for high school content time 

PLCs? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How are content time high school PLCs overseen or supervised? 
b.  What, if anything, is different about high school content time PLCs this school 

year? 

8.  What challenges do high school content time PLCs present? 

200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  How do you think these PLCs affects your district’s high school? Its 

administrators, teachers, professional culture? 

b.  How might these PLCs be improved? 

9.  What connection, if any, exists in the district’s high schools between teacher evaluation 

and content time PLCs? 
Possible probes/prompts: 

a.  Is there an explicitly expected or mandated connection? If so, could you give an 

example of how the connection works? 

b.  Is there a custom or practice that makes a connection? If so, could you give an 

example of how the connection works? 

10. How would you compare the effects of teacher evaluations and content time PLCs in 

your district’s high schools? 

a.  How would you compare the benefits to high school teachers’? Central or 

building administrators? Why? 

b.  What would you change about one to align or improve the functioning and 

outcomes of the other? Why?  

11. Concluding questions: 

a.  Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else is important for me to understand about 
your district’s systems of teacher performance evaluation or content time PLCs at 
the high school level? 

b.  Would you like to add or clarify anything we’ve discussed? 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

201 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

APPENDIX F 

Code Descriptions 

 

 

Institutionalized Evaluation Structure: with respect to the state-mandated system of annual  
teacher performance evaluation, its formal components, relationships, rules and resources; and its 
norms, processes and practices as implemented by the case high schools in their particular 
districts.  

o  Evaluation as district implemented: how the district of a case high school establishes, 

organizes and operates its institutionalized evaluation structure; excludes structural 
linkages (defined below) between evaluation and PLC structures. 

o  Evaluation as school implemented: how a case high school establishes, organizes and 
operates its institutionalized evaluation structure; excludes structural linkages (defined 
below) between evaluation and PLC structures. 

  Evaluation Work Determination: with respect to the content or “what” of teacher participation 
in their own evaluation, who primarily decides the objectives, tasks, activities and products to be 
engaged in by the teacher. 

o  Teacher-driven evaluation work: evaluation objectives, tasks, activities, and products that 

are primarily determined by individual teachers as compared to administrators. 

o  Administration-driven evaluation work: evaluation objectives, tasks, activities, and 
products that are primarily determined by administrators as compared to individual 
teachers. 

  Teacher Evaluation Participation Purposes: how teachers and administrators explain why 

teachers participate in their evaluation; includes descriptions of teacher goals, rationales, 
intentions, and motivations for participation. 

o  Evaluation Compliance: teachers participate to obey or show adherence to evaluation 

demands; includes expressions such as “because we have to,” “it’s required,” and “there’s 
no choice,” and “it’s a hoop to jump through”; also includes a desire to avoid adverse 
consequences such as a low summative rating or the desire for a high final summative 
rating.  

o  Professional learning to inform/improve practice: teachers participate to obtain formative 

feedback or other resources from their administrator-evaluator concerning their 
evaluation, which the teacher may then use to modify or enhance their own teaching.    

o  Supporting school or professional norms or culture: teachers participate to uphold or 

follow collective expectations for appropriate teacher attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in 
their case high school; includes norms and practices around teacher job status, duties or 
responsibilities; being accepted or recognized as “professional,” a “good teacher,” and 
doing “a good job”; also includes such norms and practices as teacher collaboration, 
equality, autonomy, and professional expertise and judgment. 

 

202 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Influences on Evaluation Participation: teacher beliefs and experiences that significantly 
inform or affect their attitude toward or enactment of their evaluation; excludes teacher beliefs 
and experiences related to structural linkages between evaluation and PLCs (defined below). 

o  PLC-related influences: general teacher beliefs about or experiences with PLCs that 

inform or affect their attitude toward or enactment of their evaluation; includes discussion 
in PLC related to evaluation, but unrelated to relevant PLC work or goals, and excludes 
instances where it is the tasked, assigned or expected PLC work or its products that affect 
evaluation participation. 

o  Non-PLC-related influences: any influence that is not related to general teacher beliefs 

about or experiences with PLCs; includes influences stemming from beliefs about or 
experiences with, for example, personality traits, and teacher preparation or induction; 
and, apart from evaluation, professional learning activities, informal peer interactions, 
and administrative leadership or support. 

  Value of Evaluation Participation: descriptions of the significance, utility, meaningfulness, or 
other value of evaluation to teachers, including any of its activities, products or effects; includes 
expressions about the value of evaluation overall or of any evaluation component or process. 

o  Positive value evaluation participation: favorable descriptions of the significance, utility, 

meaningfulness, or other value of evaluation; includes positively valued evaluation 
components and processes, as well as favorable changes in evaluation. 

o  Neutral or mixed value evaluation participation: neutral (neither explicitly positive or 
negative) or combined positive and negative descriptions of the significance, utility, 
meaningfulness, or other value of evaluation; includes neutrally or combined valued 
evaluation components and processes, as well as neutral or combined expressions about 
changes in evaluation; also includes expressions such as “it doesn’t concern me,” or “I 
don’t worry about it.” 

o  Negative value evaluation participation: unfavorable descriptions of the significance, the 

utility, meaningfulness, or other value of evaluation; includes negatively valued 
evaluation components and processes, unfavorable changes in evaluation. 

 

Institutionalized PLC Structure: with respect to the model of systematic teacher collaboration 
in formalized professional learning communities (PLCs) that a district with a case high school 
and the case high school adopts, the model’s formal components, relationships, rules and 
resources; and its norms, processes and practices as implemented by the case high schools in their 
particular districts.  

o  PLCs as district implemented: how the district of a case high school establishes, 

organizes and operates its institutionalized PLC structure; excludes structural linkages 
(defined below) between evaluation and PLC structures. 

o  PLCs as school implemented: how a case high school establishes, organizes and operates 
its institutionalized PLC structure; excludes structural linkages (defined below) between 
evaluation and PLC structures. 

203 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

  PLC Work Determination: with respect to the content or “what” of teacher participation in their 

PLC, who decides upon PLC objectives, tasks, activities and products to be engaged in by 
teachers. 

o  Teacher-driven PLC work: PLC objectives, tasks, activities, and products that are 
primarily determined by a PLC’s teacher-members as compared to administrators. 

o  Administration-driven PLC work: PLC objectives, tasks, activities, and products that are 

primarily determined by administrators as compared to a PLC’s teacher-members. 

  Teacher PLC Participation Purposes: why teachers participate in their PLCs; includes teacher 

descriptions of their goals, rationales, intentions, and motivations for participation. 

o  PLC Compliance: teachers participate to obey or show adherence to PLC demands; 
includes expressions such as “because we have to,” “it’s required,” and “there’s no 
choice,” and “it’s a hoop to jump through,” as well as to avoid any adverse consequences 
of non-compliance.  

o  Professional learning to inform/improve practice: teachers participate for professional 
learning from and in collaboration with their PLC peers, which the teacher may then 
apply to modify or enhance their teaching and student learning.    

o  Supporting school or professional norms or culture: teachers participate to uphold or 

follow collective expectations for appropriate teacher attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in 
their case high school; includes norms and practices around teacher job status, duties or 
responsibilities; being accepted or recognized as “professional,” a “good teacher,” and 
doing “a good job”; also includes such norms and practices as teacher collaboration, 
equality, autonomy, and professional expertise and judgment. 

 

Influences on PLC Participation: those teacher beliefs and experiences that significantly inform 
or affect their attitudes toward or enactment of their PLC work; excludes teacher beliefs and 
experiences related to structural linkages between evaluation and PLCs (defined below). 

o  Evaluation-related influences: general teacher beliefs about or experiences with 

evaluation inform or affect their attitude toward or enactment of PLC; excludes instances 
where it is required or expected evaluation components or their products that affect PLC 
participation. 

o  Non-evaluation-related influences: any influence that is not related to general teacher 

beliefs about or experiences with evaluation; includes influences stemming from beliefs 
about or experiences with, for example, personality traits, and teacher preparation or 
induction; and, apart from PLCs, professional learning activities, informal peer 
interactions, and administrative leadership or support. 

  Value of PLC Participation: teacher descriptive assessments of the significance, utility, 

meaningfulness, or other value of PLCs to their teacher-members, including any of its activities, 
products or effects; includes expressions about the value of PLCs overall or of any PLC 

204 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

component or process. 

o  Positive value PLC participation: favorable descriptions of the significance, utility, 

meaningfulness, or other value of PLCs; includes positively valued PLC components and 
processes, as well as favorable changes in PLCs. 

o  Neutral or mixed value evaluation participation: neutral (neither explicitly positive or 
negative) or combined positive and negative descriptions of the significance, utility, 
meaningfulness, or other value of PLCs; includes neutrally or combined valued PLC 
components and processes, as well as neutral or combined expressions about changes in 
PLCs; also includes expressions such as “it doesn’t concern me,” or “I don’t worry about 
it.” 

o  Negative value evaluation participation: unfavorable descriptions of the significance, the 

utility, meaningfulness, or other value of PLCs; includes negatively valued PLC 
components and processes, unfavorable changes in PLCs. 

  Evaluation/PLC Relationship and Inter-Relationship: how evaluation and PLCs compare or 

relate to each other, plus those interactions or interconnections that provide opportunities 
common to or shared by both structures through which teachers may take their response to the 
demands of one and adapt their response to the demand of the other.   

o  Teacher/administrator perceptions/experience of the evaluation/PLC relationship: how 

teachers and administrators describe the relationship between evaluation and PLCs, 
including any relationship or connection between their respective components and 
processes; includes descriptions of how they have experienced any relationship, the 
absence of any relationship, and descriptions of any comparison or contrast.  

o  Structural linkages: the nature, form, and properties of those opportunities for teacher 
adaptive response strategies arising from the structural interactions or interconnections 
between evaluation and PLCs; linkages encourage, incentivize or facilitate teacher 
adaptive response strategies, whether developed or initiated by teachers or administrators. 

o  Teacher responses to structural linkages: how teachers engage with a structural linkage 
through the use of an adaptive response strategy whereby their response to the demands 
of one structure also serves their response to the demands of the other. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

205 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

REFERENCES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

206 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict Amid Community: The Micropolitics of Teacher Collaboration. 
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455. 
 
Adams, J. E., Jr., and Kirst, M. W. (1999). New Demands and Concepts for Educational 
Accountability: Striving for Results in an Era of Excellence. In J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (eds.), 
Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 463-489). Washington, DC: AERA. 
 
Akiba, M. and Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student 
achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Researcher, 109(1), 99-110. 
 
Andrews-Larson, C., Wilson, J., and Larbi-Cherif, A. (2017). Instructional Improvement and 
Teachers’ Collaborative Conversations: The Role of Focus and Facilitation. Teachers College 
Record, 119(2), 1-36. 
 
Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., Mickelson, R. A. (2016). Teacher Job Satisfaction and 
Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration 
in Schools. American Journal of Education, 123(February), 203-241. 
 
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and 
Implementation for Novice Researchers, The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. 
 
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 
Publications, Inc. 
 
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., and Ryan, G. W. (2017). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic 
Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Blankenship, S. S. and Ruona, W. E. A. (2007). Professional Learning Communities and 
Communities of Practice: A Comparison of Models, Literature Review. Online Submission, 
ERIC Resources in Education (ED 504776). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504776. 
 
Bolhuis, E., Schildkamp, K., and Voogt, J. (2016). Data-based decision making in teams: 
enablers and barriers. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3-4), 213-233. 
 
Brodersen, M., Joyce, J., Bopp, L., Stewart, J., and Cherasaro, T. (2017). District implementation 
of educator evaluation systems: Survey results. Report prepared for the Michigan Department of 
Education. Centennial, CO: Marzano Research, retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Marzano_Research-
district_implementation_of_educator_evaluation_sytems-survey_results_605554_7.pdf. 
 

 

207 

Brouwer, P., Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., and Simons, R. (2012). Fostering teacher 
community development: A review of design principles and a case study of an innovative 
interdisciplinary team. Learning Environment Research, 15, 319-344. 
 
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P. G. (2016). Learning to Improve: How 
America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
 
Bryk, A. S. and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New 
York, NY: Russell SAGE Foundation. 
 
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing 
Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 
 
Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and 
Teaching: theory and practice, 21(6), 700-719. 
 
Burch, P. (2007). Educational Policy and Practice from the Perspective of Institutional Theory: 
Crafting a Wider Lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84-95. 
 
Cameron-Standerford, A., Anderson, D., Bergh, B., Selling, J., Bohjanen, S., and Barnes, A. 
(2017). Michigan Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of the Teacher Evaluation Process. 
Northern Michigan University-Michigan Department of Education report, retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/NMUMichiganTeacherEvaluationProcess_121117FI
NAL-adaready_611410_7.pdf. 
 
Buttram, J. L. and Farley-Ripple, E. N. (2016). The Role of Principals in Professional Learning 
Communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 192-220. 
 
Charner-Laird, M., Ng, M., Johnson, Moore Johnson, S., Kraft, M. A., Papay, J. P., and 
Reinhorn, S. K. (2016). Gauging Goodness of Fit: Teachers’ Assessments of their Instructional 
Teams in High-Poverty Schools. Working Paper, Project of the Next Generation of Teacher, 
Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from 
https://projectngt.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-ojectngt/files/gauging_goodness_of_fit_0622916.pdf. 
 
Chingara, R. and Heystek, J. (2019). Leadership as agency in the context of structure. 
International Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1596-1609. 
 
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures 
for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
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. (2016). What’s Policy Got to Do with It? How the Structure-Agency Debate Can 
Illuminate Policy Implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(May), 465-475. 

 

208 

Conley, S. and Enomoto, E. K. (2005). Routines in school organizations: Creating stability and 
change. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 9-21. 
 
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five 
Approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd ed. 
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
 
Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for Professional Practice. Teachers College 
Record, 91(1), 59-80. 
 
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher Professionalism: Why and How? In A. Lieberman (ed.), 
Schools as Collaborative Cultures. School Development and the Management and Change 
Series: 3. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. 
 
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What really matters for 
effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
 
Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in Teaching as a Learning 
Profession: Policy Problems and Prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (eds.), 
Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice (pp. 315-340). San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. 
 
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., and Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher Evaluation in the 
Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 
285-328. 
 
Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of 
accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 147-158. DOI 10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1. 
 
Debray, E., Parson, G., and Avila, S. (2003). Internal Alignment and External Pressure: High 
School Responses in Four State Contexts. In Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., and Siskin, L. S. (eds.), 
The New Accountability: High Schools and High-Stakes Testing (pp. 55-86). New York, NY: 
RoutledgeFalmer. 
 
Dee, T. S. and Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence 
from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267-297. 
 
Desimone, L. M. (2013). Teacher and Administrator Responses to Standards-Based Reform. 
Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1-53. 
 
DiPaola, M. F. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on 
student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60-71. 
 

 

209 

Donaldson, M. L. (2009). So Long Lake Woebegon? Using Teacher Evaluation to Raise Teacher 
Quality. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, retrieved from 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2009/06/25/6243/so-long-lake-
wobegon/  
 
Donaldson, M. L. (2012). Teachers’ Perspectives on Evaluation Reform. Washington, D.C.: 
Center for American Progress, retrieved from 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2012/12/13/47689/teachers-
perspectives-on-evaluation-reform/  
 
Donaldson, M. L. and Mavrogordato, M. (2018). Principals and teacher evaluation: The 
cognitive, relational, and organizational dimensions of working with low-performing teachers. 
Journal of Educational Administration, 56(6), 586-601. 
 
Donaldson, M. L. and Papay, J. P. (2014). Teacher Evaluation for Accountability and 
Development. In H. F. Ladd and M. E. Goertz (eds.), Handbook of Research in Education 
Finance and Policy (pp. 174-190). ProQuest Ebook Central: Routledge. 
 
Donaldson, M. L. and Woulfin, S. (2018). From Tinkering to Going “Rogue”: How Principals 
Use Agency When Enacting New Teacher Evaluation Systems. Educational Evaluation and 
Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531-556. 
 
Donohoo J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of behavior and 
other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 323-345. 
 
Doss, C. J. and Akinniranye, G. (2019). School Reform Efforts: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? 
Educator Perspectives on the Rapid Life Cycle of School Reforms. Rand Data Note: Insights 
from the American Educator Panels, retrieved from  
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2575z3-1.html. 
 
DuFour, Richard. (2004). What Is a “Professional Learning Community”? Educational 
Leadership, 61(8, May), 6-11. 
 
DuFour, Richard., DuFour, Rebecca., Eaker, R., and Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever It Takes: 
How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn. Bloomington, IN: 
Solution Tree. 
 
DuFour, Richard. and Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best 
Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly 
National Educational Service). 
 
DuFour, Richard. and Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures Built to Last: Systemic PLCs at Work. 
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. 
 
Dulude, E., Spillane, J. P., and Xavier Dumay, X. (2017). High Stakes Policy and Mandated 

 

210 

Curriculum: A Rhetorical Argumentation Analysis to Explore the Social Processes That Shape 
School Leaders’ and Teachers’ Strategic Responses. Educational Policy, 31(3), 364-403. 
 
Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(Winter), 134-142. 
 
Elmore, R., Ableman, C. H., Even, J., Kenyon, S., and Marshall, J. (2004). When Accountability 
Knocks, Will Anyone Answer? In R. Elmore (ed.), School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, 
Practice, and Performance (pp. 133-199). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
 
Emma White Research (2019). Launch Michigan: 2019 Educator Survey, retrieved from 
https://www.launchmichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Launch-MI-Full-Report-2019-
FINAL.pdf. 
 
Erichsen, K. and Reynolds, J. (2020). Public school accountability, workplace culture, and 
teacher morale. Social Science Research, 85, 1-15. Retrieved from 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssrearch.2019.102347. 
 
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research in education.  In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of 
research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 119-161). Washington, DC: American Educational Research 
Association.   
 
Feger, S. and Arruda, E (2008). Professional Learning Communities: Key Themes from the 
Literature. Report of The Education Alliance at Brown University (Spring 2008). Retrieved from 
https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/publications/professional-learning-
communities-key-themes-literature. 
 
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a 
source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118. 
 
Finnigan, K. S., and Gross, B. (2007). Do Accountability Policy Sanctions Influence Teacher 
Motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s Low-Performing Schools. American Educational Research 
Journal, 44(3), 594-629. 
 
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to 
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23. 
 
Firestone, W. A. and Shipps, D. (2005). How Do Leaders Interpret Conflicting Accountabilities 
to Improve Student Learning? In W. A. Firestone and C. Riehl (eds.), A New Agenda for 
Research in Educational Leadership (pp. 81-100). New York: Teachers College Press. 
 
Forsythe, P. B., Adams, C. M., and Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Can’t 
Improve Without It. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
 
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional Capital as Accountability. Education Policy 
Analysis Archives, 23(15), 1-17. 
 

 

211 

Fuhrman, S. H. (2003a). Preface. In S. H. Fuhrman (ed.), Designing Coherent Education Policy: 
Improving the System (pp. xi-xx). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
 
Fuhrman, S. H. (2003b). The Politics of Coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (ed.), Designing Coherent 
Education Policy: Improving the System (pp. 1-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, 5th ed. New York, NY: 
Pearson Education, Inc. 
 
Goe, L., Bell, C., and Little, O. (2008). Approaches to Teacher Effectiveness: A Research 
Synthesis. Report of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (June 2008). 
Retrieved from https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/EvaluatingTeachEffectiveness.pdf. 
 
Goetz, J.P. and LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational 
research. New York, NY: Academic Press. 
 
Gordon, K. (2008). Tightening the Ship or Slowly Sinking? Reshaping Teachers’ Work 
Conditions. In B. Fuller, M. K. Henne, and E. Hannum (eds.), Strong States, Weak Schools: The 
Benefits and Dilemmas of Centralized Accountability (pp. 31-66). Research in Sociology of 
Education, Volume 16, B. Fuller and E. Hannum (eds.). Wagon Lane, Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 
Imprint of Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd. 
 
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., and Narney, E. E. (2014). Applied Thematic Analysis: Themes and 
Codes. SAGE Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., and Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: 
An analysis of the evidence. Education Assessment and Evaluation Accountability, DOI 
10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5, 5-23. 
 
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the 
postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
 
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll and K. S. 
Louis (eds.), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth, Dilemmas (Chap 13, pp. 
181-195). Berkshire, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education. 
 
Hargreaves, A. and Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of Professional Development: Contrived Collegiality, 
Collaborative Culture, and the Case of Peer Coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 
227-241. 
 
Harris, D. N. and Herrington, C. D. (2015). Editors’ Introduction: The Use of Teacher Value-
Added Measures in Schools: New Evidence, Unanswered Questions, and Future Prospects. 
Educational Researcher, 44(2), 71-76. 
 
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform. Washington, DC: 
Brookings Institution Press. 
 

 

212 

Hewitt, K. K. (2015). Educator Evaluation Policy that Incorporates EVAAS Value-Added 
Measures: Undermined Intentions and Exacerbated Inequities. Education Policy Analysis 
Archives, 23(76), 1-35. 
 
Honig, M. I. and Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting Coherence: How Schools Strategically Manage 
Multiple, External Demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30. 
 
Hord, S. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and 
Improvement. Report of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (now American 
Institutes for Research [AIR]). Retrieved from https://sedl.org/pubs/change34/. 
 
Horn, I., Garner, B., Chen, I-C. and Frank, K. A. (2020). Seeing Colleagues as Learning 
Resources: The Influence of Mathematics Teacher Meeting Quality on Advice-Seeking Social 
Networks. AERA Open, 6(2), 1-19. Retrieved from 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858420914898. 
 
Horn, I. S., Garner, B., Kane, B. D., and Brasel, J. (2017). A Taxonomy of Instructional Learning 
Opportunities in Teachers’ Workgroup Conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 41-
54. 
 
Horn, I. S., Kane, B. D., and Garner, B. (2018). Teacher Collaborative Time: Helping Teachers 
Make Sense of Ambitious Teaching in the Context of Their Schools. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. 
Henrick, T. M. Smith, and the MIST Team (eds.), Systems for Instructional Improvement: 
Creating Coherence from the Classroom to the District Office (Chap 6, pp. 93-112). Cambridge, 
MA: Harvard Education Press. 
 
Horn, I. S. and Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and Resources 
for Professional Learning in Teachers’ Workplace Interactions. American Educational Research 
Journal, 47(1), 181-217. 
 
Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Who Controls Teachers’ Work? Power and Accountability in America’s 
Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
 
Ingersoll, R. M. and Collins, G. J. (2017). Accountability and Control in American Schools. 
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 75-95. 
 
Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., and Lupppescu, S. (2015). Teacher Perspectives on Evaluation 
Reform: Chicago’s REACH Students. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105-116. 
 
Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher Collaboration: good for some, not so good for others. Educational  
Studies, 29(4), 337-351 
 
Johnson, S. M. (2015). Will VAMS Reinforce the Walls of the Egg-Crate School? Educational 
Researcher, 44(2), 117-126. 
 

 

213 

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., and Papay, J. P. (2012). How Context Matters in High-Need 
Schools: The Effects of Teachers’ Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and 
Their Students’ Achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-35. 
 
Johnson, S. M., Reinhold, S., and Simon, N. (2018). Ending Isolation: The Payoff of Teacher 
Teams in Successful High-Poverty Urban Schools. Teachers College Record, 120(5), 1-46. 
 
Jones, N. D., Bettini, E., and Brownell, M. T. (2016). Competing Strands of Educational Reform 
Policy: Can Collaborative School Reform and Teacher Evaluation Reform Be Reconciled? 
Albert Shanker Institute research report, retrieved from  http://www.shankerinstitute.org/ 
resource/competingstrands. 
 
Kelley, C. J. and Finnigan, K. (2003). The Effects of Organizational Context on Teacher 
Expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 603-634. 
 
Kimball, S. M. (2002). Analysis of Feedback, Enabling Conditions and Fairness Perceptions of 
Teachers in Three School Districts with New Standards-Based Evaluation Systems. Journal of 
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 241-268. 
 
Knapp, M. S., Bamburg, J. D., Ferguson, M. C., and Hill, P. T. (1998). Converging Reforms and 
the Working Lives of Frontline Professionals in Schools. Educational Policy, 12(4), 397-418. 
 
Knapp, M. S. and Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external 
accountability: Challenge for urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of 
Educational Administration, 50(5), 666-694. 
 
Koppich, J. E. and Kerchner, C. T. (1999). Organizing the Other Half of Teaching. In L. Darling-
Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and 
Practice (pp. 315-340). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. 
 
Kraft, M. A. and Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as 
Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences. Education Administration 
Quarterly, 52(5), 711-753. 
 
Kraft, M. A. and Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting The Widget Effect: Teacher Evaluation 
Reforms and the Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234-249. 
 
Kraft, M. A. and Papay, J. P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote 
Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476-500. 
 
Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S., and Bryk, A. S. (1995). An Emerging Framework for Analyzing 
School-Based Professional Community. In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse, and Associates (eds.), 
Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools (Chap 2, pp. 23-42). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., a SAGE Publications Company. 
 

 

214 

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban 
Schools: A Descriptive Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62. 
 
Lane, J. L. (2020). Maintaining the Frame: Using Frame Analysis to Explain Teacher Evaluation 
Policy Implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 5-42. 
 
Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the Intended and Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes 
Teacher Evaluation on Schools, Teachers, and Students. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1-29. 
 
Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective Responsibility for Learning and Its Effects on 
Gains in Achievement for Early Secondary School Students. American Journal of Education, 
104 (February), 103-136. 
 
Lenhof, S. (2012). Strengthening Michigan’s Teacher Force: How a new teacher evaluation 
system will better equip Michigan educators to improve student achievement. The Education 
Trust-Midwest, retrieved from https://www.bridgemi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/73387 
_ETI_WidgetEffect.pdf. 
 
Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the Study and Design of Collaborative Teacher Learning: The 
Affordances of Different Conceptions of Teacher Community and Activity Theory. Teacher 
Education Quarterly 37(1), 109-130. 
 
Lipsky, M. (2010 [1980]). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public 
Services. 30th Anniversary Ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 
 
Little, J. W. (1990). The Persistance of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers’ 
Professional Relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536. 
 
Little, J. W. (2002a). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice opening up 
problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-
946. 
 
Little, J. W. (2002b). Professional community and the problem of high school reform. 
International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 693-714. 
 
Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., and Wyckoff, J. (2015). Performance screens for school improvement: 
The case of teacher tenure reform in New York City. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 199-212. 
 
Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., and Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student 
achievement – a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121-148. 
 
Lortie, D. C. (2002 [1975]). Schoolteacher. 2d ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 
 
Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., and Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student 
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 
21(3), 315-336. 

 

215 

Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., and Associates (eds.) (1995). Professionalism and Community: 
Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., a SAGE 
Publications Company. 
 
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., and Bryk, A. S. (1995). Professionalism and Community: What Is It 
and Why Is It Important in Urban Schools? In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse, and Associates (eds.), 
Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools (Chap 1, pp. 3-22). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., a SAGE Publications Company. 
 
Louis, K. S. and Lee, M. (2016). Teacher capacity for organizational learning: the effects of 
school culture and context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(4), 534-556. 
 
Louis, K. S. and Marks, H. M. (1998). Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom? 
Teachers’ Work and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools. American Journal of 
Education, 106 (August), 532-565. 
 
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., and Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Community in 
Restructuring Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798. 
 
Louis, K. S. and Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: school 
leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629-665. 
 
Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S., Strunk, K. O., Lincove, J. A., and Huguet, A. (2017). 
Evaluating Teachers in the Big Easy: How Organizational Context Shapes Policy Reponses in 
New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 539-570. 
 
Marzano Research (2017). Teacher and Administrator Evaluation Systems: Case Study Report. 
Centennial, CO: Marzano Research. Report prepared for the Michigan Department of Education, 
retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MarzanoResearchFinalCaseStudyReport508-
Update_610904_7.pdf. 
 
Maslow, V. J. and Kelley, C. J. (2012). Does Evaluation Advance Teaching Practice? The 
Effects of Performance Evaluation on Teaching Quality and System Change in Large Diverse 
High Schools. Journal of School Leadership, 22, 600-630. 
 
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3rd ed. No. 41 of 
Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.  
 
McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants, and the Obama 
education agenda. Educational Policy, 16, 136-159. 
 
McLaughlin, M. W. and Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional Communities and the Work of High 
School Teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 
 

 

216 

Mehta, J. (2013). The Allure of Order: High Hopes, Dashed Expectations, and the Troubled 
Quest to Remake American Schooling. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1248 (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249 (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(1) (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(1)(d) (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(2)(a) (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(2)(f) (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(2)(j) (2018). 
 
Mich. Comp. Laws §1249(2)(k) (2018). 
 
Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness (2013). Building an Improvement-Focus System of 
Educator Evaluation in Michigan: Final Recommendations, retrieved from  
http://www.mcede.org/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSI7MjAxMy8wNy8yMy8yMS80NC
81NS83NzYvbWlkbmlnaHRyZXBvcnRfanVseTI0XzIwMTMucGRmBjoGRVQ/midnightreport
_july24_2013.pdf. 
 
Michigan Department of Education (nd.a). Educator Evaluations and Effectiveness in Michigan: 
An analysis of 2013-14 educators evaluation systems survey and educator effectiveness data, 
retrieved from  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2013-
14_Educator_Evaluations_and_Effectiveness_485909_7.pdf. 
 
Michigan Department of Education (nd.b). Michigan Educator Evaluations At-a-Glance. Office 
of Educator Excellence, retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Educator_Evaluations_At-A-Glance_522133_7.pdf. 
 
Michigan Department of Education (2019). MI School Data, retrieved from 
https://www.mischooldata.org/. 
 
Miesner, H. R., Blair, E. E., Packard, C. C., Velaquez, M., Macgregor, L., and Grodsky, E. 
(2019). Collaborating in Context: Relational Trust and Collaborative Structures in Eight 
Wisconsin Elementary Schools. WCER Working Paper No. 2019-7 (September 2019). 
Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from 
https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2019_7.pdf. 
 
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A Methods 
Sourcebook, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 

 

217 

Mϕller, J. (2008). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial 
and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 37-46. 
 
Moran, R. M. R. (2017). The Impact of a High Stakes Teacher Evaluation System: Educator 
Perspectives on Accountability. Educational Studies, 53(2), 178-193. 
 
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., and Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Case of 
the Missing Clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349-354. 
 
Murphy, J. and Torre, D. (2014). Creating Productive Cultures in Schools for Students, 
Teachers, and Parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A SAGE Company. 
 
National Council on Teacher Quality (2017). 2017 State Teacher Policy Yearbook. Retrieved 
from https://www.nctq.org/publications/2017-State-Teacher-Policy-Yearbook.  

Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., and Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and School Performance: 
Implications from Restructuring Schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41-69. 
 
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., and Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional Program 
Coherence: What It Is and Why It Should Guide School Improvement Policy. Education 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321. 
 
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement. Harvard 
Educational Review, 72(3), 292-329. 
 
O’Day, J. A. (2008). NCLB and the Complexity of School Improvement. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. 
A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, and K. M. Borman (eds.), No Child Left Behind and the Reduction 
of the Achievement Gap (pp. 25-52). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 
 
Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the Debate: Assessing the Purposes and Tools of Teacher 
Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123-141. 
 
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and 
Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Pogodzinski, B., Umpstead, R., and Witt, J. (2015). Teacher evaluation reform implementation 
and labor relations. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 540-561. 
 
Peterson, P. L. and Comeaux. M. A. (1990). Evaluating the Systems: Teachers’ Perspectives on 
Teacher Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 3-24. 
 
Popp, J. S., and Goldman, S. R. (2016). Knowledge building in teacher professional learning 
communities: Focus of meeting matters. Teacher and Teacher Education, 59, 347-359. 
 
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for Teacher Learning: A Community of Practice Perspective. 
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226. 
 

 

218 

Public Employment Relations Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§423.201, et seq. 
 
Quintero, E. (ed.) (2017). Teaching in Context: The Social Side of Education Reform. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
 
Ray Tayor and Associates (2017). Educator Evaluation Research and Evaluation Activities Final 
Report. Report to the Michigan Department of Education, retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/FINAL_MDE_Educator_Evaluation_Final_Report_6
05652_7.pdf. 
 
Reid, D. B. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of how principals use new teacher evaluation systems. 
Teachers and Teaching, 26(1), 129-144. 
 
Reinhorn, S., Johnson, S. M., and Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in Development: Six High-
Performing, High-Poverty Schools Implement Massachusetts’ Teacher Evaluation Policy. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 383-406. 
 
Reinhorn, S. and Johnson, S. M. (2015). Can Teacher Evaluation Provide Both Accountability 
and Development? Learning from Six Schools’ Implementation of Evaluation Policy. Project on 
the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education, retrieved from 
https://projectngt.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-
projectngt/files/can_evaluation_provide_accountability_and_development_1016.pdf. 
 
Revised School Code of 1976, as amended by PA 2009, No. 205, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 2010, codified 
as Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1249, further amended by PA 2010, No. 336, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 
2010; PA 2011, No. 102, Imd. Eff. July 19, 2011; PA 2015, No. 173, Imd. Eff. Nov. 5, 2015; PA 
2018, No. 235, Eff. Sept. 29, 2018. 
 
Richmond, G. and Manokore, V. (2010). Identifying Elements Critical for Functional and 
Sustainable Professional Learning Communities. Science Teacher Education, DOI 
10.1002/sce.20430. Retrieved from www.wileyonlinelibrary.com. 
 
Rigby, J. G. (2014). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of 
Educational Administration, 53(3), 385-390. 
 
Rigby, J. G., Larbi-Cherif, A., Rosenquist, B. A., Sharpe, C. J., Cobb, P., and Smith, T. (2017). 
Administrator Observation Feedback: Does It Lead Toward Improvement in Inquiry-Oriented 
Math Instruction? Educational Administration Quarterly, DOI: 10.1177/0013161X16687006, 1-
42.  
 
Rigby, J. G., Woulfin, S. L., and Marz, V. (2016). Understanding How Structure and Agency 
Influence Education Policy Implementation and Organizational Change. American Journal of 
Education, 122(May), 295-301. 
 
Robinson, S. (2012). Constructing teacher agency in response to the constraints of education 
policy: adoption and adaptation. The Curriculum Journal, 23(2), 231-245. 

 

219 

Robinson, V., Bendikson, L., McNaughton, S., Wilson, A., and Zhu, T. (2017). Joining the Dots: 
The Challenge of Creating Coherent School Improvement. Teachers College Record, 119(9), 1-
43. 
 
Ronfeldt, M., McQueen, K., and Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher Collaboration in Instructional 
Teams and Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475-514. 
 
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational 
Design of Schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-359. 
 
Rowan, B., Schilling, S. G., Spain, A., Bhandari, P., Berger, D., and Graves, J. (2013). 
Promoting High Quality Teacher Evaluations in Michigan: Lessons from a Pilot of Educator 
Effectiveness Tools. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, retrieved from 
http://mcede.org/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSJXMjAxNC8wMi8wNC8yMC80NS8wN
y80NzcvUHJvbW90aW5nX0hpZ2hfUXVhbGl0eV9UZWFjaGVyX0V2YWx1YXRpb25zX2lu
X01pY2hpZ2FuLnBkZgY6BkVU/Promoting-High-Quality-Teacher%20Evaluations-in-
Michigan.pdf. 
 
Russell, J. L. and Bray, L. E. (2013). Crafting Coherence from Complex Policy Messages: 
Educators’ Perceptions of Special Education and Standards-Based Accountability Policies. 
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(12), 1-18. 
 
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage. 
 
Serdiouk, M., Bopp, L., and Cherasaro, T. (2017). Teacher Perceptions of Evaluator Feedback: 
Final Report. Report prepared for the Michigan Department of Education. Centennial, CO: 
Marzano Research, retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Marzano_Research_Teacher_Perceptions_O_fEvalua
tor_Feedback_Final_Report1_611115_7.pdf. 
 
Sewell, W.H. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American 
Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. 
 
Shirrell, M. (2016). New principals, accountability, and commitment in low-performing schools. 
Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 558-574. 
 
Silver, C. and Lewins, A. (2014). Using Software in Qualitative Research: a step-by-step guide, 
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: 
Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 
387-431. 
 
Sporte, S. E., Stevens, W. D., Healey, K., Jiang, J., and Hart, H. (2013). Teacher Evaluation in 
Practice: Implementing Chicago’s REACH Students. Research Report (September 2013), 

 

220 

University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from 
https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/teacher-evaluation-practice-implementing-
chicagos-reach-students. 
 
Srinivasan, L. and Archer, J. (2018). From Fragmentation to Coherence: How more integrative 
ways of working could accelerate improvement and progress. Report of the Carnegie 
Corporation of New York (November 2018). Retrieved from 
https://www.carnegie.org/topics/topic-articles/improving-schools-systems/accelerating-
improvement-education-equity-solutions-address-fragmentation/. 
 
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of 
Qualitative Research, 2nd ed (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing. 
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York, New York: Guilford Press. 
 
Stone-Johnson, C. (2015). Intensification and isolation: Alienated teaching and collaborative 
professional relationships in the accountability context. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 29-
39. 
 
Stosich, E. L. (2018). Principals and teachers “craft coherence” among accountability policies. 
Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 203-219. 
 
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning 
Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221-258. 
 
Stone-Johnson, C. (2016). Intensification and Isolation: Alienated teaching and collaborative 
professional relationship in the accountability context. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 29-
49. 
 
Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing Communities of Instructional Practice. Teachers College 
Record, 104(8), 1591-1626. 
 
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., and May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peer Influence Teaching and 
Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56. 
 
Sykes, G. (1999). The “New Professionalism” in Education: An Appraisal. In J. Murphy and K. 
S. Louis (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 227-249). 
Washington, DC: AERA. 
 
Szczesiul, S. A. and Huizenga, J. L. (2015). Bridging Structure and Agency: Exploring the Role 
of Teacher Leadership in Teacher Collaboration. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 368-405. 
 
Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional Learning Communities at the Crossroads: How Systems 
Hinder or Engender Change. In A. Hargreaves, et al. (eds.), Second International Handbook of 
Educational Change (pp. 555-571). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. 
 

 

221 

Talbert, J. E. and McLaughlin, M. W. (2008). Teaching Quality as a Problem of School Change. 
In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, and K. M. Borman (eds.), No Child Left 
Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement Gap (pp. 177-200). New York, NY: Routledge, 
Taylor & Francis Group. 
 
Talbert, J. E. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher Professionalism in Local School 
Contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123-153. 
 
Taylor, E. S. and Tyler, J. H. (2012). The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance. 
American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628-3651. 
 
Teacher Tenure Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§38.71, et seq. 
 
Thiel, C., Schweigher, S., and Bellmann, J. (2017). Rethinking Side Effects of Accountability in 
Education: Insights from a Multiple Methods Study in Four German School Systems. Education 
Policy Analysis Archives, 25(93), 1-27. 
 
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Harrison, C., and Cohen-Vogel, L. (2016). Cultures of Learning in High 
Schools. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 52(4), 602-642. 
 
Tuytens, M. and Devos, G. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of 
teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36(5), 521-536. 
 
Valli, L. and Buese, D. (2007). The Changing Roles of Teachers in an Era of High-Stakes 
Accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558. 
 
Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., and Walters, K. (2007). Who (Else) is the Teacher? Cautionary Notes 
on Teacher Accountability Systems. American Journal of Education, 113 (August), 635-662. 
 
Vescio, V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional 
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 24, 80-91. 
 
Weatherley, R. and Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: 
Implementing Special Education Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197. 
 
Weathers, J. M. (2014). Teacher Community in Urban Elementary Schools: The Role of 
Leadership and Bureaucratic Accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(3), 1-33. 
 
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., and Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our National 
Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness, 2nd ed. Report of The 
New Teacher Project, retrieved from 
https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf. 
 
White, K. W. and Rosenbaum, J. E. (2008). Inside the Black Box of Accountability: How High 
Stakes Accountability Alters School Culture and the Classification and Treatment of Students 

 

222 

and Teachers. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, and K. M. Borman (eds.), No 
Child Left Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement Gap (pp. 177-200). New York, NY: 
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 
 
Whitehurst, G. J., Chingos, M. M., and Lindquist, K. M. (2014). Evaluating Teachers with 
Classroom Observations: Lessons Learned in Four Districts. Report of Brown Center on 
Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/evaluating-
teachers-with-classroom-observations-lessons-learned-in-four-districts/. 
 
Wills, J. S. and Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained Professionalism: Dilemmas of Teaching in 
the Face of Test-Based Accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114. 
 
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ Learning Communities: Catalyst for Change or a New Infrastructure 
for the Status Quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739. 
 
Woodland, R. H. and Mazur, R. (2015). Beyond Hammers Versus Hugs: Leveraging Educator 
Evaluation and Professional Learning Communities into Job-Embedded Professional 
Development. NASSP Bulletin, 99(1), 5-25. 
 
Woulfin, S. L. (2016). Duet or Duel? A Portrait of Two Logics of Reading Instruction in an 
Urban School District. American Journal of Education, 122, 337-362. 

Woulfin, S. L., Donaldson, M. L., and Gonzales, R. (2016). District Leaders’ Framing of 
Educator Evaluation Policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110-135. 

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and Methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Young, V. M. (2006). Teachers’ Use of Data: Loose Coupling, Agenda Setting, and Team 
Norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521-548. 

 

 

 

 

223