Does It Matter Who Evaluates Teachers? Principal Versus Teacher-Led Evaluation and Teacher Motivation
Abstract
Increasing job demands and continuing struggles to improve teacher evaluation practice raise the question of how peers might assist principals with teacher evaluation. Using a robust international sample (TALIS2013) of 36,411 teachers from 2,759 schools in 11 countries, we tested the hypothesis that teacher-led evaluation practices are associated with more teacher-reported positive changes in classroom practice, confidence, and motivation than principal-led evaluation practices in three areas evaluation: (1) classroom observations, (2) assessments of teacher content knowledge, and (3) analysis of student test score data. We found that teacher-led evaluation is associated with more positive feelings of motivation and change in practice for all three evaluation areas, but particularly for assessments of teacher content knowledge and test score data analysis. Further, principals’ reported use of extrinsic motivational tools to reward or punish teachers based upon their evaluation was also negatively associated with teachers’ motivation and reports of positive change in practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Bobbitt F. (1913). Some general principles of management applied to the problems of city-school systems. Teachers College Record, 14(6), 7–96.
Brookhart S. M., Freeman D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62, 37–60.
Cherasaro T. L., Brodersen R. M., Reale M. L., Yanoski D. C. (2016). Teachers’ responses to feedback from evaluators: What feedback characteristics matter? (REL 2017-190). Regional Educational Laboratory Central.
Chong S., Low E. L. (2009). Why I want to teach and how I feel about teaching—Formation of teacher identity from pre-service to the beginning teacher phase. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 59–72.
Close K., Amrein-Beardsley A., Collins C. (2020). Putting teacher evaluation systems on the map: An overview of state’s teacher evaluation systems post–Every Student Succeeds Act. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 58. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5252
Cohen D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press.
Cohen J., Loeb S., Miller L. C., Wyckoff J. H. (2020). Policy implementation, principal agency, and strategic action: Improving teaching effectiveness in New York City middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(1), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719893338
Danielson C. (2010). Evaluations that help teachers learn. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 35–39. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec10/vol68/num04/Evaluations-That-Help-Teachers-Learn.aspx
De Leeuw E. D., Hox J. J., Huisman M. (2003). Prevention and treatment of item nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 153–176.
Dewey J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. Liveright.
Donaldson M. L. (2021). Multidisciplinary perspectives on teacher evaluation: Understanding the research and theory. Routledge.
Donaldson M. L., Firestone W. (2021). Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 501–534.
Donaldson M. L., 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.
Dynarski M. (2016, December 8). Teacher observations have been a waste of time and money. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/teacher-observations-have-been-a-waste-of-time-and-money/
Enders C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
Falabella A., De La Vega L. F. (2016). Políticas de responsabilización por desempeño escolar: Un debate a partir de la literatura internacional y el caso Chileno [Accountability policies for school performance: A debate from international literature and the Chilean case]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 42(2), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000200023
Firestone W. A., Donaldson M. L. (2019). Teacher evaluation as data use: What recent research suggests. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 31, 289–314.
Flores M. A., Derrington M. L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: Lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431.
Ford T. G. (2018). Pointing teachers in the wrong direction: Understanding Louisiana elementary teachers’ use of Compass high-stakes teacher evaluation data. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9280-x
Ford T. G., Hewitt K. (2020). Better integrating summative and formative goals in the design of next generation teacher evaluation systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 63. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5024
Ford T. G., Urick A., Wilson A. S. P. (2018). Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 59. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3559
Ford T. G., Van Sickle M. E., Clark L. V., Fazio-Brunson M., Schween D. C. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586855
Gabriel R., Woulfin S. (2017). Making teacher evaluation work: A guide for literacy teachers and leaders. Heinemann.
Gagnon D. J., Hall E. L., Marion S. (2017). Teacher evaluation and local control in the US: An investigation into the degree of local control afforded to districts in defining evaluation procedures for teachers in non-tested subjects and grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2016.1167669
Galey-Horn S., Woulfin S. L. (2021). Muddy waters: The micropolitics of instructional coaches’ work in evaluation. American Journal of Education, 127(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.1086/713827
Glanz J., Hazi H. (2019). Shedding light on the phenomenon of supervision traveling incognito: A field’s struggles for visibility. Journal of Educational Supervision, 2(1), 1–21.
Goldring E., Grissom J. A., Rubin M., Neumerski C. M., Cannata M., Drake T., Schuermann P. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104.
Goldstein J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 479–508.
Guenther A. R. (2021). “It should be helping me improve, not telling me I’m a bad teacher”: The influence of accountability-focused evaluations on teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 1–10.
Harvey M. W., Boyland L. G., Quick M. M. (2019). An investigation of teacher evaluation practice in Indiana: PL 90 implementation and issues for administrators. International Journal of Educational Reform, 28(1), 24–47.
Hazi H. M. (1994). The teacher evaluation-supervision dilemma: A case of entaglements and irreconcilable differences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(2), 195–216.
Hewitt K. K. (2015). Educator evaluation policy that incorporates EVAAS value-added measures: Undermined intentions and exacerbated inequities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 76. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1968
Hill H. C., Blunk M. L., Charalambous C. Y., Lewis J. M., Phelps G. C., Sleep L., Ball D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430–511.
Holloway J., Sørensen T. B., Verger A. (2017). Global perspectives on high-stakes teacher accountability policies: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 85. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.3325
Hosic J. F. (1920). The democratization of supervision. School and Society, 45, 331–336.
Howell W. G. (2015). Results of President Obama’s race to the top. Education Next, 15(4). http://educationnext.org/results-president-obama-race-to-the-top-reform/
Hox J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Jiang J. Y., Sporte S. E., Luppescu S. (2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago’s REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44, 105–116.
Johnson S. M. (2019). Where teachers thrive: Organizing schools for success. Harvard Education Press.
Johnson S. M., Papay J. P., Fiarman S. E., Munger M. S., Qazilbash E. K. (2010). Teacher to teacher: Realizing the potential of peer assistance and review. Center for American Progress.
Keith T. Z. (2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Kennedy M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Hersarvard Univity Press.
Kim J., Sun M. (2021). The implementation and potential effects of teacher evaluation under local control. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32, 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1841657
König J., Rothland M. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: Effects on general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 289–315.
Kraft M. A., Christian A. (2022). Can teacher evaluation systems produce high-quality feedback? An administrator training field experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 59(3), 500–537.
Kraft M. A., Gilmour A. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753.
Kraft M. A., Gilmour A. F. (2017). Revisiting The Widget Effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.
Krecic M. J., Grmek M. I. (2005). The reasons students choose teaching professions. Educational Studies, 31, 265–274.
Kunter M., Holzburger D. (2014). Loving teaching: Research on teachers’ intrinsic orientations. In Richardson P. W., Karabenick S. A., Watt H. M. G. (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 83–99). Routledge.
Kyriacou C., Coulthard M. (2000). Undergraduates’ views of teaching as a career choice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 117–126.
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.
Lavigne A. L., Chamberlain R. W. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(2), 179–209.
Lavigne A. L., Good T. L. (2015). Improving teaching through observation and feedback: Going beyond state and federal mandates. Routledge.
Lavigne A. L., Good T. L. (2019). Enhancing teacher education, development, and evaluation: Lessons learned from educational reform. Routledge.
Lavigne A. L., Good T. L. (2020, April 29). Addressing teacher evaluation appropriately: A practice brief for school board members, superintendents, and principals. Division 15: American Psychological Association. https://apadiv15.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/D15-Practice-Brief-Teacher-Evaluation.pdf
Linacre J. M. (2014). WINSTEPS rasch measurement (Version 3.81.0). Winsteps.com.
Longchamp J. C. (2017). The effect of student learning objectives on teachers and teaching as part of the teacher evaluation process: A grounded theory study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Vermont.
Lortie D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
Marsh J. A., Bush-Mecenas S., Strunk K. O., Lincove J. A., Huguet A. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717698221
Mette I. M., Aguilar I., Wieczorek D. (2020). A thirty state analysis of teacher supervision and evaluation systems in the ESSA era. Journal of Educational Supervision, 3(2), 105–135. https://doi.org/10.31045/jes.3.2.7
Murphy J., Hallinger P., Heck R. H. (2013). Leading teacher evaluation: The case of missing clothes. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2018). Making a difference: Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590763.pdf
Newlon J. H. (1923). Attitude of the teacher toward supervision. National Educational Association (NEA) Proceedings, 61, 546–549.
Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). Teaching and learning survey 2013: Conceptual framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS%20Conceptual%20Framework_FINAL.pdf
Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2014a). TALIS 2013 technical report. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-technical-report-2013.pdf
Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2014b). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en
Pallas A. M. (2021). The rhetoric of teacher evaluation: New York City teachers’ responses to performance labels. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211049432
Papay J. P., Johnson S. M. (2012). Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs. Educational Policy, 26(5), 696–729.
Payne W. H. (1875). Chapters on school supervision: A practical treatise on superintendency: Grading: Arranging courses of study: The preparation and use of blanks, records, and reports: Examination for promotion, etc. Van Antwerp Bragg and Company.
Range B. G., Scherz S., Holt C. R., Young S. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: The Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 23, 243–265.
Reddy L. A., Dudek C. M., Peters S., Alperin A., Kettler R. J., Kurz A. (2018). Teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: A preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 30, 47–70.
Ridge B. L., Lavigne A. L. (2020). Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback: A review of the literature. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 61.
Roth G. (2014). Antecedents and outcomes of teachers’ autonomous motivation: A selfdetermination theory analysis. In Richardson P. W., Karabenick S. A., Watt H. M. G. (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 36–51). Routledge.
Ryan R. M., Brown K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: The motivational impact of high-stakes testing as an educational reform. In Dweck C., Elliot A. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354–372). Guilford Press.
Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan R. M., Weinstein N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 224–233.
Sinclair C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 79–104.
Singh J. (2004). Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example. Journal of Business Research, 57, 184–208.
Smith E. C., Starratt G. K., McCrink C. L., Whitford H. (2020). Teacher evaluation feedback and instructional practice self-efficacy in secondary school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 671–701.
Smith W. C. (2014). The global transformation toward testing for accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 116. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22.1571
Smith W. C., Holloway J. (2020). School testing culture and teacher satisfaction. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 32(4), 461–479.
Smith W. C., Kubacka K. (2017). The emphasis of student test scores in teacher appraisal systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 86. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2889
Stecher B. M., Holtzman D. J., Garet M. S., Hamilton L. S., Engberg J., Chambers J. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness. Final report. The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/RR2242/RAND_RR2242.pdf
Taylor F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper and Brothers.
Tyack D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American education. Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every student succeeds act. https://www.ed.gov/essa
Walsh K., Joseph N., Lakis K., Lubell S. (2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. National Council on Teacher Quality. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Final_Evaluation_Paper
Watt H. M. G., Richardson P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18, 408–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002
Woulfin S. L., Donaldson M. L., Gonzales R. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x15616661
Biographies
Timothy G. Ford is an associate professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma. He examines the role of school leadership in facilitating more collaborative work environments among teachers and in supporting teacher and leaders’ psychological needs as learners.
Alyson L. Lavigne is an associate professor of instructional leadership at Utah State University. Using her training as an educational psychologist and classroom researcher, Lavigne has conducted research on teacher retention, teachers’ beliefs, teacher supervision and evaluation, and culturally and linguistically diverse minoritized students’ experiences.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: February 9, 2023
Issue published: June 2024
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 1344
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 3 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 4
- The role of school leadership in teacher motivation in public secondary schools of Lahore District, Pakistan
- Boosting Classroom Practices Through Principal Feedback: The Mediating Roles of Teacher Professional Learning and Teacher Self‐Efficacy
- Reclaiming accountability through collaborative curriculum enquiry: New directions in teacher evaluation
- How Contextual Factors Influence Teacher Perceptions of Teacher Evaluation Implementation
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
