![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Over the past 10 years, since No Child Left Behind started pressuring school districts to focus on student test scores, many states have begun to consider student performance when evaluating teachers. This article will provide preventive measures of fairness and substantive due process to avoid potential teacher objections and gain teacher support. These “steps along the way” will avoid putting all the decision-making power in the hands of a single evaluator, thereby ensuring a fairer process.
References
Section:
|
Alexander, K., Alexander, D. M. (2012). American public school law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Google Scholar | |
|
Bridges, E. M. (1990). Managing the incompetent teacher (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Danielson, C. (2008). The handbook for enhancing professional practice: Using the framework for teaching in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Google Scholar | |
|
Danielson, C., McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Google Scholar | |
|
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Google Scholar | |
|
David, J. L. (2010). Using value-added measures to evaluate teachers. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 81-82. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Davis, B. G. (1993). Motivating students. In Tools for teaching (pp. 193-204). Berkeley, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
| Delaware General Assembly . (2008). Teacher appraisal challenge process (Delaware Regulations: Administrative Code—Title 14 Education, Accountability). Dover: Delaware Regulations Office. Google Scholar | |
|
DeSander, M. K. (2000). Teacher evaluations and merit pay: Legal considerations, practical concerns. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 309-312. Google Scholar | |
|
Donaldson, M. L. (2009, June 25). So long, Lake Woebegon? Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Google Scholar | |
|
Duffett, A., Farkas, S., Rotherham, A. J., Silva, E. (2008, May). Waiting to be won over: Teachers speak on the profession, unions, and reform. Washington, DC: Education Sector. Google Scholar | |
|
Epstein, M. (2008). A teacher wonders: Can grading teachers work? American Educator, 32(3), 14-16. Google Scholar | |
|
Evanston/Skokie CC School District 65 . (2009, June). Professional appraisal system. Evanston, IL: Author. Google Scholar | |
| Gates Foundation . (2010). Learning about teaching (Measures of Effective Teaching Project Policy Brief). Seattle, WA: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Goldhaber, D. (2010). When the stakes are high, can we rely on value-added? Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Google Scholar | |
|
Gratz, D. B. (2009). The problem with performance pay. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 76-79. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Harris, D. N. (2010, May). Clear away the smoke and mirrors of value-added. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 66-69. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Heard, W. (2010, July 9). Rethinking teacher tenure. Seattle Public Education Examiner, p. 3. Google Scholar | |
|
Marzano, R. (2010). A new era for teacher evaluation. Blairsville, PA: IObservation, Learning Sciences International. Google Scholar | |
|
Matula, J. Merit pay for teachers: time to give it a chance. The Journal of School Business Management, 22(2), 20. Google Scholar | |
| Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Google Scholar | |
|
Moskowitz, T. J., Wertheim, L. J. (2011, January 17). What’s really behind home field advantage? Sports Illustrated, 114(2), 65-72. Google Scholar | |
|
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards . (2009). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author. Google Scholar | |
| The New Teacher Project . (2010, October). Teacher evaluation 2.0. Brooklyn NY: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Pallas, A. M. (2011). Measuring what matters. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 68-71. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Peterson, K. D. (2006). Using multiple data sources in teacher evaluation systems. In Stronge, J. H. (Ed.), Evaluating teaching (2nd ed., pp. 212-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Quinn, P. (2010, January 19). The State of Illinois, race to the top: Application for initial funding (p. 109). Springfield: Office of the Governor, Illinois State Board of Education. Google Scholar | |
|
Reeder, S. (2005). The hidden costs of tenure. Springfield, IL: Small Newspaper Group. Google Scholar | |
|
Roulbet, M. (2009, May 6). Teacher tenure: A life sentence for kids? Chicago, IL: Loyola University of Chicago. Google Scholar | |
|
Steele, J. L., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M. (2010). Incorporating student performance measures into teacher evaluation systems. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Google Scholar | |
|
Stein, M. K., Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 423-448. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Stronge, J. H. (2006). Teacher evaluation and school improvement. In Stronge, J. H. (Ed.), Evaluating teaching (2nd ed., pp. 10-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sullivan, K. A., Zirkel, P. A. (1998). The law of teacher evaluation: Case law update. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 367-380. Google Scholar |
