A Study of Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Models in American Schools

Purdue University

Purdue e-Pubs

Open Access 5eses 5eses and Dissertations

2013

A Study of Teacher Eectiveness Evaluation

Models in American Schools

Lacey Bowman

Purdue University

Follow this and additional works at: h6ps://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses

Part of the Art Education Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research

Commons

5is document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for

additional information.

Recommended Citation

Bowman, Lacey, "A Study of Teacher E4ectiveness Evaluation Models in American Schools" (2013). Open Access eses. 20.

h6ps://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/20

Graduate School ETD Form 9

(Revised 12/07)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL

Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared

Entitled

For the degree of

Is approved by the final examining committee:

Chair

To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and

Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.

Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________

____________________________________

Approved by:

Head of the Graduate Program Date

Lacey Bowman

A Study of Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Models in American Schools

Master of Arts

F. Robert Sabol

Kathryn Reeves

David Parrish

F. Robert Sabol

Harry Bulow

11/25/2013

A STUDY OF TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION MODELS IN

AMERICAN SCHOOLS

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

Purdue University

Lacey Bowman

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

December 2013

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

For Jason

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The accomplishments and successes gained throughout my study of Art Education

are due to the commitment and guidance of colleagues, professors, and friends. The study

reported here is significant evidence of the dedication I felt and that of others to the

importance of visual arts education in America.

I wish to thank my committee members especially for their patience, willingness,

and wealth of knowledge. Members of my committee, Dr. Robert Sabol, Kathryn Reeves,

and Dr. David Parrish, have each contributed to my skills and experience as an artist and

as an educator. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Robert Sabol, chair of my

committee, for the amount of time and thoughtfulness he has contributed to my study and

understanding of what it means to be an exceptional art educator.

For contributing to my study, I am appreciative of the efforts of Jean-Marie

Galing of Fairfax County Public Schools and Chrissy Kapcoe of Miami-Dade County

Public Schools for providing materials. My study and experience at Purdue University is

of great importance to me and it has provided me with a firm foundation for continuing

my pursuit of knowledge and experience in my future endeavors as an art educator.

Lacey Bowman, M.A.

Purdue University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. vi

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..................................................... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2. PRECURSORS TO INCREASED TEACHER PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT .............................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT BASED TEACHER

EFFECTIVENESS MODELS .......................................................................................... 12

3.1 The Danielson Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model ........................12

3.2 The Marzano Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model ..........................16

3.3 Comparison of the Danielson and Marzano Teacher Effectiveness

Evaluation Models ........................................................................................................ 19



CHAPTER 4. TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION MODELS IN

PRACTICE ............................................................................................................. 28



4.1 The Indiana Department of Education RISE Model ................................28

4.2 The Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher Performance Evaluation

System ................................................................................................................. 32

4.3 The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Instructional Performance

Evaluation and Growth System .................................................................................... 37



CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 42

Page

5.1 How Students Learn .................................................................................42

5.2 Outcomes of Increased Attention on Teacher Evaluations ......................45

5.3 Pre-Service Teachers, Licensure, and Current Evaluation Models ..........47

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 50

VITA ............................................................................................................. 52

ABSTRACT

Bowman, Lacey C. M.A., Purdue University, December 2013. A Study of Teacher

Evaluation Effectiveness Models in American Schools. Major Professor: F. Robert Sabol.

The quality of education in America is an issue currently being examined through

various perspectives. The use of a teacher effectiveness evaluation model is one method

used to determine the link between student achievement and the instructional practices of

the teacher. The study reported here will focus on the factors leading up to the increased

attention on student achievement in American schools, the role of teacher effectiveness

evaluation models in delivering a quality education, and the consequences of using such

evaluation models. A comparison will be made between the models developed by

Charlotte Danielson and Robert Marzano. In addition, the study compares these models

to three teacher effectiveness evaluation models being used in public school systems

across America. The relationship between teacher effectiveness evaluation models and

delivering a quality education will be discussed in terms of how it relates to what is

known about how students learn effectively.

INTRODUCTION

The initial foundation of this study is based on my own personal experiences in

the classroom as an art educator. Art education involves personal expression with the

inclusion of authentic, desirable outcomes generated by the learner. The role of the

teacher is to suggest through experience, and his or her own understanding, a route that

would be most successful for students. Meaningful learning rarely takes place under a

prescribed, step-by-step formula strictly enforced by the teacher. Free expression fostered

without guidance, however, falls short of meeting established state and national standards

and assessment goals. Students, as the product of instruction based upon prior personal

experiences and knowledge, will learn and create meaning in the context of an authentic

process.

The intention of this study is to inform those who are in a role capable of carrying

out the methods, concepts, and ideas discussed here. In addition to this, consideration is

needed for obtaining the comprehensive goal of redefining the current views about art

education in relation to student achievement and standardized testing. Art education,

along with other classroom disciplines, should be taught with specific integration in order

to maintain meaning and authenticity. An overarching support and belief system are the

necessary structures needed for a school-wide or district-wide educational community to

operate based on this type of student-centered learning.

CHAPTER 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Currently, the implementation of art in school curriculum as an academically

relevant subject is not entirely accepted or understood across the country. Art instruction,

in some cases, is still based on teacher-directed instruction pertaining to form and design

without much deviation from the example. Learning is based on action and

experimentation. Students need intrinsic motivation in order to produce art, or any other

work. This motivation will, in turn, provide the meaning for what they are doing and

make their learning more concrete.

This study takes into consideration the needs of students, as well as the needs of

the educational system in America, in order to cultivate a broad range of intellectual

skills that are meant to inspire and develop the full potential of every child. Findings from

this study are intended to inform educational leaders and others who shape educational

policy. Administrators and teachers need to participate in a dialogue with those who

implement educational policy so that communications necessary for reconsidering the

relationship between teacher evaluations, student achievement, and the skills necessary

for Americans to compete in the international marketplace can be achieved.

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 2. PRECURSORS TO INCREASED TEACHER PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT

The struggle to adjust to the changing cultural and demographic make-up of the

United States and to compete in the world marketplace as a leader has contributed to the

educational reform that has been taking place in the United States for decades. In 1981

the Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell, created the National Commission on Excellence in

Education in order to determine qualities of education in America. Findings from a study

of American education were published in the report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for

Educational Reform. The report, presented a portrait of a national education system in

steep decline. This conclusion was based on such factors as consistently decreasing

scores on standardized tests, declining adult literacy rates, the inability of many high

school students to utilize higher order thinking skills for certain tasks, and the need for

increased remedial courses at the college level and in the workforce (National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Bell assembled the Commission due to

the widespread public perception that there were serious problems with the American

educational system. He launched the Commission based on his “responsibility to provide

leadership, constructive criticism, and effective assistance to schools and universities”

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 7) Furthermore, the purpose

of the Commission was not only to suggest solutions to the educational problems facing

the country, but also to identify factors that were responsible for contributing to its

decline. With input from all concerned about the future of education, including the

American citizens and public leaders, the Commission believed educational concerns

could be improved if everyone involved was fully committed to resolving them. The

document states, “This report, nevertheless, gives evidence that men and women of good

will can agree on common goals and on ways to pursue them” (National Commission on

Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 8).

The Commission reported that the weakening academic achievements of students

fueled concerns about America’s ability to keep up with technological advancements

made by other industrialized nations, such as the Soviet Union, Japan, South Korea, and

Germany. “We compete with them for international standing and markets, not only with

products, but also with the ideas of our laboratories and neighborhood workshops”

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 10). Undoubtedly, keeping

the country in good economic standing as compared to foreign competitors is a benefit to

all citizens alike. Not only for material gains, but also from the standpoint of the quality

of life, it is necessary for education in America to reach the same level as the other

nations with which the United States competes. Knowledge and skill are the new

resources most valuable for affirming our position in the international marketplace. “A

high level of shared education is essential…especially in a country that prides itself on

pluralism and individual freedom” (National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983, p. 10). The findings in A Nation at Risk also came at a time when local occupations

were rapidly changing because of the increased reliance on technology in such fields as

health care, construction, and energy production (National Commission on Excellence in

Education, 1983). In light of the unfavorable performance identified for student

achievement and the growing demand for better scientific and technological skills, the

need for increased focus on higher order thinking skills is becoming fully realized.

Evidence of the talents possessed by students has largely been reported through the use of

standardized testing. However, emphasis on such outcomes has distracted attention from

certain proficiencies that may substantially help America’s goal of producing students

who can successfully compete in a global society. Comprehension, analysis and problem

solving abilities, and drawing conclusions are vital cognitive competencies needed for

advanced performance in the workplace and for functioning in daily life. From another

point of view, leaving out the arts and humanities from the core of curriculum in schools

is a disservice by allowing them to be overtaken by technical and occupational demands.

“Knowledge of the humanities…must be harnessed to science and technology if the latter

are to remain creative and humane, just as the humanities need to be informed by science

and technology if they are to remain relevant to the human condition” (National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 12).

Underlying assumptions and dispositions are embedded in the statistics and

findings published in the report (National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983). Frustration and hope for delivering a quality education for our students is evident

in school systems across the nation. Political and educational leaders are called upon by

the public to answer and address the issues facing education. According to the

Commission, solutions could only be found if, “…we avoid the unproductive tendency of

some to search for scapegoats among the victims, such as the beleaguered teachers”

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 13). The Commission also

suggested that English, history, geography, economics, and foreign languages would need

to provide a more comprehensive reform for improving excellence in education in the

future. Moreover, the report suggested that excellence is defined by two groups of

stakeholders. First, by the individual learner who is responsible for performing to the

fullest extent of his or her abilities in ways that challenge their personal limits. Second,

by schools and colleges that are held accountable by assigning high expectations to each

individual learner as well as aiding students in achieving those goals through all means

possible (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Striving for a high

level of excellence in our schools, however, should not come at the expense of sacrificing

equity for all students. Balance between the two concerns presents the opportunity for

students to refine their personal skills to their highest potential. By focusing on individual

abilities, development of a society which thrives on life-long learning is possible. “In a

world of ever-accelerating competition and change in the conditions of the workplace

…and of ever-larger opportunities for those prepared to meet them, educational reform

should focus on the goal of creating a Learning Society” (National Commission on

Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 14). Creating learners who seek knowledge throughout

their lives and careers will aid our country in producing citizens who are able to compete

in rapidly advancing work, social, and living environments.

In its report, the Commission states that the educational process is most affected

by insufficiencies in four areas: content, expectations, time, and teaching. Content, in this

case, is defined by the Commission as curriculum. The area of expectations refers to the

degree of knowledge, abilities, and skills high school and college graduates should have.

The use of time in American schools as reported by the Commission suggests that: (1.)

students in America spend less time in school than other countries; (2.) class time and

homework time are used ineffectively; (3.) schools do not provide enough guidance in

helping students develop adequate study skills, time management skills, or the

willingness to spend more time on school work. With respect to teaching, four main

factors were identified: (1.) pre-service teacher programs needed improvement; (2.) the

professional life of teachers is undesirable; (3.) the shortage of teachers is significant in

key fields; and (4.) academically qualified students shy away from becoming teachers. In

terms of meeting the high standards of providing a high-quality, effective system of

education, schools along with members of society, seem to have lost sight of what

achieving such a goal would entail. The many diverse demands placed on schools by

policy makers and the public are not easy to address. “They [schools] are routinely called

upon to provide solutions to personal, social, and political problems that the home and

other institutions either will not or cannot resolve.” (National Commission on Excellence

in Education, 1983, p. 9).

The following study examines similar educational concerns about the quality of

education in our country through the lens of art education. A survey conducted by the

U.S. Government Accountability Office, (GAO) (2009), regarding access to arts

education found that in schools recognized as needing improvement and/or with a higher

percentage of minority students, teachers reported significantly less time available for arts

instruction. Proper funding also is essential in education. The absence of adequate

funding results in inequities related to the accessibility and the value of schooling in both

rural and urban areas (Duvall, 1998). Students in schools with the highest need and

highest demand for student intervention and support are given less opportunity to

participate in arts education programming. As a result they are least likely to experience

such gains (Israel, 2009). Legislatures often fail to recognize that certain factors

contributing to poor test performances can be diminished with increased funding and yet

schools with good test performances continue to be financially rewarded, while low

performing schools that could benefit most from increased funding are denied such

resources (Cawelti, 2006; Zellmer, Frontier, & Pheifer, 2006). As a discipline, art

education has been involved in an ongoing struggle to solidify its position as a significant

contributor within the school curriculum. Art educators realize that art education is on the

sidelines of education and often viewed as less important by the public and decision-

makers (Sabol, 2006). Art educators often find themselves in an advocacy role more

focused on justification than those who are teaching in other subjects.

In the current educational climate, policymakers are at a crucial intersection in

which they need to understand how teachers’ performances affect student success in the

classroom (Sabol, 2013). Concerns of the public and other interested stakeholders have

caused leaders and administrators to find solutions for meeting student needs. “Although

problems may appear to be similar, in reality, they are unique to each educational context

and require solutions that apply to individual schools or settings” (Clark & Zimmerman,

2000). It is the responsibility of school administrators working in both rural and urban

environments to examine social constraints on the unique situations each face as they

address various educational concerns. For example, negative social influences for rural

populations can include substance abuse, transient populations, truancy and absenteeism,

teen pregnancy, poverty, dysfunctional families, lack of artistic literacy, lack of student

discipline, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance to diversity (Sabol, 1999). For urban

populations factors such as truancy and absenteeism, student turnover, gangs and

violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, overcrowding, inclusion, low student

motivation and poor attitude, dysfunctional families, teacher burnout, child abuse, racial

tension, suicide, incarceration, and homelessness (Sabol, 1998). In association with these

findings, the involvement of parents and community members in school decision-making

reduced discipline referrals, lowered absenteeism and class failures, improved test scores,

and increased graduation rates (Olson, 1998). In order to bridge the gap between school

and community, supervisors and administrators must be mindful of the need for their own

ongoing professional development (Sabol, 2005). Quality leadership, making informed

decisions, and developing and implementing effective change are all dependent upon

cultivating the necessary professional skills.

Schools in America have had the reputation of preparing students for the

workplace without emphasizing the knowledge and skills necessary to perform in the

workplace. An overemphasis on practical capabilities in disciplines such as language arts

and mathematics has allowed a dramatic disregard for how basic skills will be applied in

real-life situations (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

Underfunded schools are incapable of providing quality educational experiences, but the

narrowing of curriculum also has been seen as the product of increased accountability on

basic skills (President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, 2011). An arts

education provides experiences beyond rote learning by requiring individuals to use what

they know in order to solve problems, make assumptions, and consider multiple

possibilities. William J. Bennett, the U.S. Secretary of Education in 1988, stated that,

“Art, no less than philosophy or science, issues a challenge to the intellect…teaching

lessons about order, proportion, and genius” (National Commission on Excellence in

Education, 1983, p. 1). Interdisciplinary by nature, the arts are important in the lives of

America’s youth. An extensive understanding of how the arts maintain an important role

within all subjects is the basis for a transformation in education. “Reformers are now

calling for transformation of learning, that is, fundamental change in what and how

students learn” (President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, 2011, p. 30).

Another publication of significance was released in May of 1988 by the National

Endowment for the Arts. It focused on the quality of arts education for American

students. In Toward Civilization agreement was expressed with the findings published in

A Nation at Risk. The unavoidable need for our county to adequately prepare our students

for the future is addressed.

Many of the challenges [of the future] will, obviously, be scientific and

technological – and our schools must give our children the tools to deal with

them. Less obviously, many of the challenges will be cultural. They will pose

questions concerning what it is to be an American and what our civilization stands

for. Education in the arts can help with this. (National Endowment for the Arts,

1988, p. v).

The report about the status of arts intended to identify which arts were necessary

for addition to the current school curriculum and provide rationales for why they were

important. Furthermore, the status of arts education at that time, and for previous

generations, was deemed unsatisfactory and the report recommended ways to make

improvements. The purpose of arts education, as stated by the National Endowment for

the Arts, is not to create pleasant performances and exhibitions for parents and the

community to enjoy. Instead, it was recommended that resources should be used to create

culturally meaningful and relevant experiences for all students. An articulated curriculum

which follows a prescribed scope and sequence had not been established, and therefore,

reliable evaluation measures did not exist. Preparation of teachers to instruct students in

art history and art criticism was lacking. As a result, increased emphasis was placed on

production or the creation of art.

Compatible with the current Administration’s goal that U.S. post-secondary

achievements provide examples of global leadership by 2020, it is imperative that the

significant percentage of students whose needs are not being met along with a dramatic

shift in K-12 education become a priority. Meeting the needs of diverse learners is more

relevant now than in previous educational reforms. “School leaders and teachers will

need to step up to the challenge of finding new ways to engage many more students in

meaningful learning to meet the goal at a time when schools are grappling to reach a

broadly culturally diverse student body” (President’s Committee on the Arts and the

Humanities, 2011, p. 27).

CHAPTER 3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT BASED TEACHER

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION MODELS

3.1 The Danielson Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model

Addressing concerns regarding the state of education in America today relies on

hard evidence provided by school districts across the country. In addition to student test

scores, teacher evaluations also are seen as a crucial indicator for evaluating the quality

of education students receive in American schools. Danielson (2010/2011) introduced a

teacher evaluation system, The Framework for Teaching, which “provides the vehicle for

teacher growth and development by providing opportunities for professional conversation

around agreed-on standards of practice” (Danielson, 2010/2011, p. 39). The problem,

Danielson states, is that current evaluation systems carry very little consistency or clear

definition regarding how certain evaluative terms are used. A lack of consistency in how

evaluators and administrators assign ratings to individual teachers from one school to

another is an issue which presents “a violation of a fundamental principle of equity”

(Danielson, 2010/2011, p. 35). Current evaluation models also fail to include

conversations about improving teaching practices. Instead, evaluators identify what

teachers are doing wrong in a judgmental manner instead of focusing on how to improve

instruction.

According to Danielson, a successful teacher evaluation system needs to reveal

sufficient answers to four distinct questions: How good is good enough? Good enough at

what? How do we know? and Who should decide? (Danielson, 2010/2011). In order to

gain a deeper understanding, knowing why teachers are evaluated in the first place is

extremely important as reported in A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence

in Education, 1983). State laws require proof that certain standards are being taught and

measured in schools. These laws are in place because schools receive public funds and

therefore the public has a right to obtain evidence of students receiving a high-quality and

globally competitive level of education (Danielson, 2010/2011). Danielson’s model for

teacher effectiveness evaluation uses a rubric format to evaluate teacher performance –

much like a teacher would use in class for student assignments. One goal of the system is

to create the needed consistency lacking in current procedures. Administrators should

have the ability to state: “Everyone who teaches here is good – and here’s how I know”

(Danielson, 2010/2011, p. 35). Consistency is achieved by not only finding good teaching

practices in the classroom, but also by what the teacher does before and after a lesson

outside of normal instructional time in order to prepare or perform necessary professional

duties. After identifying an element of performance, a shared understanding of what it

means to have a rating of Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, or Distinguished is

understood by all teachers, mentors, and administrators in the school district. Along with

this unified understanding, evaluators must also be skilled enough to know whether or not

a teacher is adequately performing according to the standards of their discipline while in

a classroom setting. Once this information has been gathered, it also is the responsibility

of the evaluator to use the information for comparison against the agreed upon ratings for

teacher performance in order to make a qualified judgment. Engaging teachers, both new

and experienced, in conversations about their practice as a means to recognize areas of

improvement, provides another level of quality assurance that the evaluations of the

evaluator are fair, reliable, and valid (Danielson, 2010/2011).

Ongoing professional development is a benefit experienced through conversations

between teachers and their evaluators as well as through interactions teachers have with

colleagues and other professionals involved in the evaluation process. This view is

supported in other studies, “Supervisors and administrators must be mindful of the need

for their own ongoing professional development. In order to provide quality leadership,

make informed decisions, and develop and implement effective change, they must

continuously seek and engage in professional development” (Sabol, 2005, p. 172). The

practice of teaching is a continuous and challenging process, “Just as in other professions,

every teacher has the responsibility to be involved in a career-long quest to improve

practice” (Danielson, 2010/2011, p. 37).

The intention of Danielson’s teacher evaluation system is to bring together the

idea of fair, reliable, and valid evaluations with ongoing professional development. Her

system adds a collaborative approach to teacher evaluation while at the same time

acquiring “hardsounding” qualities. By merging these two categories into the design of

the system, the teacher is taken out of a passive role. This stance is usually a consequence

of teacher evaluations which focus primarily on the findings of the evaluator. As

Danielson states, most current evaluations do not ring true with our basic understandings

of teaching and learning.

The process violates everything we know about learning – that learning is done by

the learner through a process of active intellectual engagement. If we want teacher

evaluation systems that teachers find meaningful and from which they can learn,

we must use processes that not only are rigorous, valid, and reliable, but also

engage teachers in those activities that promote learning – namely self-

assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation. (Danielson,

2010/2011, p. 37).

Danielson’s system allows the teacher to actively participate in their own

evaluation by embedding the opportunity for them to experience self-assessment. Rather

than the findings of the evaluator remaining secretive or hidden, they are given to the

teacher after a classroom observation. As the teacher reflects upon his or her performance

in relation to the notes taken by the administrator, a personal evaluation of how their

teaching relates to the criteria and rating system also takes place. Before meeting, both

the teacher and the evaluator have an opportunity to think about the teacher’s

performance. Strengths and weaknesses, challenges with student behavior, and other

influential factors can all be addressed through discussion. This collaborative approach

enables both parties to work under shared ideas and goals toward good teaching

(Danielson, 2010/2011).

The Framework for Teaching, as explained by Danielson, has a few impediments

to be addressed during implementation. For administrators and others, establishing a

consistent mindset while using an evaluation system can be difficult. Practice is needed

for evaluators to become like-minded as well as for them to become familiar with the

framework used for evaluations. Several steps are included in the training of evaluators.

They include the following: (1.) Participants gain familiarity with the four domains of

teaching responsibility including planning and preparation, classroom environment,

instruction, and professional responsibilities. In addition, they learn the twenty-two

components that describe each of the four domains and the two to five elements that

describe each component; (2.) Participants understand how to recognize sources of

evidence for all components and elements listed under each of the four domains; (3.)

Participants learn how to interpret the evidence against the rubrics for each component’s

levels of performance; (4.) Participants learn how to calibrate their judgments against

those of their colleagues (Danielson, 2010/2011).

A second consideration that influences evaluations is the amount of time

necessary for conducting meaningful conversations about good teaching practices. “We

can’t create more hours in the day, but careful setting of priorities and judicious

scheduling of both observations and conferences can make the best use of the time

available” (Danielson, 2010/2011, p. 38). Devoting time to productive conversations can

facilitate evaluations which follow a more thoughtful approach. Allowing teachers a

chance to reflect on their practice with an administrator is beneficial in upholding agreed

upon standards of practice (Danielson, 2010/2011).

3.2 The Marzano Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model

Increased attention on teacher evaluation systems has influenced many evaluation

models to become more focused on teacher development, rather than success rates with

students. Marzano (2012) believes that placing more emphasis on teacher learning will

produce systems which are unlike those intended to measure teacher competence. The

growing number of school districts working to create and implement more effective

teacher evaluation systems is linked to past inadequacies in measuring the performance of

teachers. He states that the first weakness is due to teacher evaluation systems which

have not accurately differentiated between effective and ineffective teachers. Second,

teacher evaluation systems have not contributed to the development of a highly skilled

teacher workforce. According to Marzano, developing teachers and measuring teacher

effectiveness have very different implications. In a study, Marzano surveyed over 3,000

educators. He asked them to indicate the degree of importance they placed on

measurement as the sole purpose of teacher evaluation, the degree of importance of

development as the sole purpose of teacher evaluation and the degree of importance that

the purpose of teacher evaluation structured to be half measurement and half

development. A majority of the respondents believed that development was more

important than measurement.

A teacher evaluation model which leads to enhancing the performance of teachers

is both comprehensive and specific. “Comprehensiveness” indicates that the model

includes all elements which have been identified through research as having an impact on

student achievement. “Specificity” means that strategies and behaviors to be observed in

the classroom are pinpointed to the exact characteristics needed under each element.

Marzano’s teacher evaluation model includes four domains. They include the following:

 Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors

 Domain 2: Planning and Preparing

 Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching

 Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

To use Domain 1 :Classroom Strategies and Behaviors as an example, the lesson

segments identified under this section are I. Segments Involving Routine Events; II.

Segments Addressing Content; and III. Segments Enacted on the Spot. Design Questions

within each of the lesson segments in Domain 1 organize forty-one different

comprehensive elements which are instructional categories that happen in the classroom.

Marzano uses these forty-one elements to “represent the diversity of strategies that a

comprehensive model of teacher evaluation should include” (Marzano, 2012, p. 16).

An evaluation system which develops teachers should also have a scale that

supports tracking and guiding teachers’ progress. This scale includes clearly stated levels

of development as follows: Not Using, Beginning, Developing, Applying, and Innovating

(Marzano, 2012). “Not Using” indicates that a teacher is either unaware or has not

employed a certain strategy in the classroom. “Beginning” means that a teacher has used

a strategy, but with errors or incompletion. “Developing” indicates that a teacher is

conducting the use of strategies with relative competency and minor mistakes.

“Applying” means that a strategy has begun to create a positive effect on students in the

classroom. At the highest level, teachers are innovating by employing strategies which

not only produce positive results, but the teacher is troubleshooting in order to help all

students benefit. In contrast to a system geared toward measurement, this model provides

specific guidance on how to improve at each level.

In addition to being comprehensive, a teacher evaluation model should reward

growth for transitioning to a higher level on the developmental scale. This would lead to

teachers obtaining two different scores by the end of the school year. A “status” score,

which indicates teacher performance at its current level, is given first, followed by a

growth score. A growth score is decided upon by the teacher setting a goal toward a

higher level on the developmental scale. For example, if the status score was at the

“developing” level and the goal for the teacher was to reach the “applying” level by the

end of the year, the teacher would be evaluated again on how far he or she came in

accomplishing their goal. Both scores are considered when determining the summative

evaluation of the teacher at the end of the year, which may include levels of Advanced,

Proficient, Needing Improvement, or Not Acceptable levels. “Such a system would

communicate to teachers that the school expects-and rewards-continuous improvement”

(Marzano, 2012, p. 19).

3.3 Comparison of the Danielson and Marzano Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation

Models

Similarities between the Danielson and Marzano evaluation models are based on

the most important aspects of each system. The most obvious and significant of them is

that they both believe that teacher evaluation should be driven by the need for teachers to

improve their practice. Danielson recognizes the need for teachers to align their strategies

with the requirements set forth in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). “They

emphasize active, rather than passive learning by students” (Danielson, 2013, p. 5). As

stated in A Nation at Risk, it is imperative that we prepare our students for what lies

ahead in their futures. CCSS support that belief and educators will need to develop news

skills in order to keep up with such demands. “Teaching for deep conceptual

understanding, for argumentation, and for logical reasoning have not, after all been high

priorities in most school districts or preparation programs” (Danielson, 2013, p. 5). The

Domains set up by Danielson and Marzano are very specific in identifying where and

how teachers and administrators should direct their attention in order to align teaching

expectations with student achievement expectations. Danielson establishes four domains:

 Planning and Preparation

 The Classroom Environment

 Instruction

 Professional Responsibilities

Each domain includes respective components which highlight elements of good

teaching followed by indicators of achieving such elements. Four levels of performance

can then be used to score the teacher on how well they implemented elements within their

classroom. This rating scale can be compared to the developmental rating scale used by

Marzano. Both scales are comprehensive and specific in identifying the characteristics of

rating at each level. For example, in Danielson’s framework, Domain 1, Component 1a:

Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy the Unsatisfactory, Level 1 rating

includes a detailed explanation: In planning and practice, the teacher makes content

errors or does not correct errors made by students. The teacher displays little

understanding of prerequisite knowledge important to student learning of the content. The

teacher displays little or no understanding of the range of pedagogical approaches

suitable to student learning of the content.

Critical attributes for this level include: The teacher makes constant errors; The

teacher does not consider prerequisite relationships when planning; and The teacher’s

plans use inappropriate strategies for the discipline. Possible examples of these attributes

are listed as: The teacher says, “The official language of Brazil is Spanish, just like other

South American countries,” or the teacher says, “I don’t understand why the math book

has decimals in the same unit as fractions,” and the teacher has students copy dictionary

definitions each week to help them learn to spell difficult words (Danielson, 2013, p. 10).

The content in each domain of the Danielson and Marzano models exhibit

similarities as well. In her first domain, Planning and Preparation, Danielson emphasizes

a teacher’s need to thoroughly understand the discipline they are teaching. Furthermore,

teachers are required to understand the most effective pedagogical approaches to teaching

students about various areas of subject matter. Domain 1 is categorized into the following

components:

 Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

 Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

 Setting Instructional Outcomes

 Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

 Designing Coherent Instruction

 Designing Student Assessments

Demonstrating Knowledge and Content includes the following elements: (1.)

Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline. Every discipline has a dominant

structure, with smaller components or strands, as well as central concepts and skills; (2.)

Knowledge of prerequisite relationships. Some disciplines, such as mathematics, have

important prerequisites. Experienced teachers know what these are and know how to use

them in designing lessons and units; (3.) Knowledge of content-related pedagogy.

Different disciplines have “signature pedagogies” that have evolved over time and been

found to be most effective in teaching. Each element of Danielson’s domain is followed

by a set of indicators. For example, Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

is identified by: lesson and unit plans that reflect important concepts in the discipline,

lesson and unit plans that accommodate prerequisite relationships between concepts and

skills, clear and accurate classroom explanations, accurate answers to students’ questions,

feedback to students that furthers learning, and interdisciplinary connections in plans and

practice.

Marzano’s four domains include:

 Classroom Strategies and Behaviors

 Planning and Preparation

 Reflecting on Teaching

 Collegiality and Professionalism

Each domain is organized into respective segments which are followed by a series

of elements explaining their role in the classroom. The first domain, Classroom Strategies

and Behaviors, requires that the “appropriate strategy be used at the appropriate segment

of the lesson.” The first segment of this domain, Involving Routine Events, includes:

Design Question (DQ1): Communicating Learning Goals and Feedback; What

will I do to establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress, and

celebrate success?

 Provide Clear Learning Goals and Scales (Rubrics)

 Track Student Progress

 Celebrate Success

Also in the first segment, Design Question 6 (DQ6), What will I do to establish nd

maintain classroom rules and procedures?

 Establish Rules and Procedures

 Establish Classroom Routines

 Organize the Physical Layout of the Classroom

As with Danielson’s framework, Marzano includes detailed and descriptive

information for each element. For example, Element 1: Providing Clear Learning Goals

and Scales (Rubrics) is identified as: “The teacher provides a clearly stated learning goal

accompanied by scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the

learning goal.” Teacher Evidence would be:

 Teacher has a learning goal posted so all students can see it. The learning

goal is a clear statement of knowledge or information as opposed to an

activity or assignment

 Teacher makes reference to the learning goal throughout the lesson

 Teacher has a scale or rubric that relates to the learning goal posted so that

all students can see it

 Teacher makes reference to the scale or rubric throughout the lesson.

Student Evidence would be as follows:

 When asked, students can explain the learning goal for the lesson

 When asked, students can explain how their current activities relate to the

learning goal

 When asked, students can explain the meaning of the levels of

performance articulated in the scale or rubric

The correlational rating scale for evaluating this portion of the observation is

established as: Innovating (4) Adapts and creates new strategies for unique student needs

and situations; Applying (3) Provides a clearly stated learning goal accompanied by a

scale or rubric that describes levels of performance and monitors students’ understanding

of the learning goal and the levels of performance; Developing (2) Provides a clearly

stated learning goal accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of

performance; Beginning (1) Uses strategy incorrectly or with parts missing; Not Using

(0) Strategy was called for but not exhibited.

Contrasting features of the teacher effectiveness evaluation models produced by

Danielson and Marzano are identified in the differing terminology and length of

descriptions for evaluators to use during teacher observations. Although both use four

primary domains, each domain is broken down differently into different parts. For

example, Danielson divides her Domains first into components which each include a

summary of how it aligns with good teaching practices and the benefits of applying it

successfully. To use a component from Domain 2, 2a: Creating an Environment of

Respect and Rapport, as an example, it states: An essential skill of teaching is that of

managing relationships with students and ensuring that relationships among student are

positive and supportive. Teachers create an environment of respect and rapport in their

classrooms by the ways they interact with students and by the interactions they encourage

and cultivate among students. An important aspect of respect and rapport relates to how

the teacher responds to students and how students are permitted to treat one another.

Patterns of interactions are critical to the overall tone of the class. In a respectful

environment, all students feel valued, safe, and comfortable taking intellectual risks.

They do not fear put-downs or ridicule from either the teacher or other students.

“Respect” shown to the teacher by students should be distinguished from students

complying with standards of conduct and behavior.

Caring interactions among teachers and students are the hallmark of component

2a while adherence to the established classroom rules characterizes success in component

2d: Managing Student Behavior. Following this information, this domain is then

classified into elements, indicators, and a rating scale of Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient,

and Distinguished. The levels are summarized in terms of expectations of teacher

performance at each level. Unsatisfactory in relation to component 2a is explained as:

Patterns of classroom interactions, both between teacher and students and among

students, are mostly negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ ages, cultural

backgrounds, and developmental levels. Student interactions are characterized by

sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict. The teacher does not deal with disrespectful behavior.

To further illustrate the unsatisfactory level, critical attributes such as “The teacher is

disrespectful toward students or insensitive to students’ ages cultural backgrounds, and

developmental levels are identified. Possible examples are also included “A student

slumps in his chair following a comment by the teacher.”

In Marzano’s model, the terminology used breaks down the domains into

segments, followed by design questions, then elements. The elements can be identified

through evidence. For example: Domain 2: Planning and Preparing:

 Planning and Preparing for Lessons and Units

o Element 1: Planning and preparing for effective scaffolding and

information within Lessons: Within lessons, the teacher prepares

and plans the organization of content in such a way that each new

pieces of information builds on the previous piece

An example of planning evidence includes: Content is organized to build upon

previous information. Teacher evidence includes: When asked, the teacher can describe

the rationale for how the content is organized. A five level rating scale then follows with

a brief description of each level. For example, Innovating (4) “The teacher is a

recognized leader in helping others with this activity.”

As an evaluator, the use of either model provides specific examples and

descriptions of what to look for when observing teachers in the classroom. However,

Danielson gives a more in-depth view of what these behaviors look like and includes

meaningful rationales for how and why teachers should perform according to good

teaching practices.

Each domain for both models also differs in size and content. For example,

Marzano’s first domain includes forty-one of the sixty elements intended to inform the

instructional practices of teachers. Danielson’s domains are not entirely equal in the

number of respective components, but the amount in each only differs by one component.

Domain 1 includes six, Domain 2 includes five, Domain 3 includes five, and Domain 4

includes six. The bulk of Marzano’s model is shifted toward the first domain, Classroom

Strategies and Behaviors, followed by Planning and Preparing. Danielson gives

somewhat equal attention to both, but established Domain 1 to focus on Planning and

Preparation, followed by a focus on The Classroom Environment in Domain 2.

For teachers, it is ideal to share experiences in a collaborative setting for the

exchange of ideas, methods, and resources for instructing a wide range of students with

various backgrounds and abilities. Professional development opportunities provide a

forum for many different teaching styles to intermingle and reshape themselves into other

situations where problems can be solved or incidents explained. Collectively, teachers

can support each other in understanding the importance of having a means to express

knowledge in a way that encourages personal interpretation and multiple outcomes over

choosing predetermined right or wrong answers. In addition to this, within their school

environments, teachers can work together toward integration of these ideas across all

instructional disciplines. The teacher evaluation models identified by Danielson and

Marzano are examples of handling the art of teaching as an ever-changing evolution of

thoughts and ideas.

CHAPTER 4. TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION MODELS IN

PRACTICE

4.1 The Indiana Department of Education RISE Model

In the push toward accountability for delivering a high quality education to

American students, many school systems are looking in a new direction for teacher

effectiveness evaluations. An overview of three models currently being used in schools

from various parts of the country will be discussed next through the lens of frameworks

developed by Danielson and/or Marzano. The models will be explained in relation to

their structure, attentiveness to cultivating good teaching practices and the amount of

guidance evaluators provide to support teachers through the evaluation process.

A state-wide evaluation model in Indiana labeled the RISE Evaluation and

Development System was initially piloted during the 2011-2012 academic year by the

Indiana Department of Education (2011/2012). The system is divided in to three primary

domains. The first domain, Purposeful Planning, includes five competencies. Purposeful

planning is defined as “Teachers use Indiana content area standards to develop a rigorous

curriculum relevant for all students: building meaningful units of study, continuous

assessments and a system for tracking student progress as well as plans for

accommodations and changes in response to a lack of student progress.” This is measured

through the following competencies:

 1.1: Utilize Assessment Data to Plan

 1.2: Set Ambitious and Measurable Achievement Goals

 1.3: Develop Standards-Based Unit Plans and Assessments

 1.4: Create Objective-Driven Lesson Plans and Assessments

 1.5: Track Student Data and Analyze Progress

Following each competency is a rubric which includes: Highly Effective (4),

Effective (3), Improvement Necessary (2), and Ineffective (1). Descriptions for each

level are included. For example, Competency 1.1: Utilize Assessment Data to Plan

includes this description for the Highly Effective (4) level: At Level 4, a teacher fulfills

the criteria for Level 3 and additionally: Incorporates differentiated instructional

strategies in planning to reach every student at his/her level of understanding. In Domain

2: Effective Instruction, the model includes the following competencies:

 2.1: Developing student understanding and mastery of lesson objectives

 2.2: Demonstrate and Clearly Communicate Content Knowledge to

Students; 2.3: Engage students in academic content

 2.4: Check for Understanding

 2.5: Modify Instruction As Needed

 2.6: Develop Higher Level of Understanding through Rigorous Instruction

and Work

 2.7: Maximize Instructional Time

 2.8: Create Classroom Culture of Respect and Collaboration

 2.9: Set High Expectations for Academic Success

Domain 3: Teacher Leadership includes competencies:

 3.1: Contribute to School Culture

 3.2: Collaborate with Peers

 3.3: Seek Professional Skills and Knowledge

 3.4: Advocate for Student Success

 3.5: Engage Families in Student Learning

A fourth part of the model, not referred to as a domain, but considered in equal

portion, is Core Professionalism. This section includes the indicators of: (1.) Attendance;

(2.) On-Time Arrival; (3.) Policies and Procedures; (4.) Respect. Each indicator is then

measured by either a Does Not Meet Standard or Meets Standard Category rating.

The amount of explanations provided in each domain of the RISE model is brief

as compared to the structure of the Danielson framework. This can be seen in Domain 2:

Effective Instruction, which is defined as “Teachers facilitate student academic practice

so that all students are participating and have the opportunity to gain mastery of the

objectives in a classroom environment that fosters a climate of urgency and expectation

around achievement, excellence, and respect” (Indiana Department of Education,

2011/2012, p. 4). Each competency which follows is then divided within the descending

levels of performance in the accompanying rubric without further information describing

its importance to good teaching practices or specific indicators of what the behavior

would look like. Examples of evidence to identify a teacher’s level of performance are

provided beneath each heading on the rubric: Highly Effective (4); Effective (3);

Improvement Necessary (2); Ineffective (1). Teachers are able to adapt and reflect on

instruction by using examples of desired teaching practices provided in the model. By

studying the rubric, teachers are able to identify required behaviors along with their

matching levels of performance. For example, in Domain 2: Competency 2.1, a Highly

Effective teacher (4) should demonstrate one or both of the following characteristics:

Students can explain what they are learning and why it is important, beyond repeating the

stated objective; Teacher effectively engages prior knowledge of students in connecting

to the lesson. Students demonstrate through work or comments that they understand this

connection.

Of the three domains in the RISE model, instruction carries the most weight in

determining a teacher’s Teacher Evaluation Rating (TER) score at seventy-five percent.

This is similar to the framework created by Marzano in that both put more emphasis on

instruction over planning or the classroom environment. In the RISE model, planning

equals ten percent and the third Domain, Leadership, accounts for fifteen percent.

Evaluators then multiply a teacher’s rating (1-4) in each domain by its percentage weight

which produces a weighted rating. The value of each weighted rating creates a total from

which points may be subtracted if a teacher has failed to meet any of the expectations

from the Core Professionalism category. After calculating the total and considering the

professional expectations, a final TER score is established. Throughout the year,

evaluators collect information from observations in four separate periods during the

school year. A beginning of the year conference is held the teacher and the evaluator.

They discuss the observation process and rubric. Qualifying teachers also will write a

professional development (PD) plan with their primary evaluator. This is followed by

three short observations taking place between Quarters one and two, two and three, and

three and four. Extended observations also take place between the first short observation

and the second. Short observations are done between two and three with an optional mid-

year conference at the same time as short observation two. The teacher and evaluator

meet for an end of the year summative evaluation conference to discuss feedback on all

performance components and the teacher’s final rating.

During an evaluator’s time in the teacher’s classroom, careful attention is paid to

collecting evidence which is concrete and specific. For example, a post-conference

conversation between teacher and evaluator would proceed as follows: E: “I observed

that you didn’t check for understanding as often as you could have.” T: “Can you give me

an example?” E: “When you transitioned from modeling the exercise to independent

practice, you didn’t have a strategy for checking to see if students’ understood the

process. This would have been a great time for a pair and share exercise.” The evaluator

is providing a detailed description of what and how the teacher needed to improve. The

RISE model explains that a judgment made by an evaluator is based on what is observed.

Ultimately, evaluators make a judgment, but specific evidence is needed to give teachers

constructive feedback for further developing their skills. Several observations take place

throughout the school year; however, only two conferences between the evaluator and

teacher are required to take place. Only qualifying teachers with a plan for professional

development have an opportunity to track progress with competencies needing

improvement. An optional mid-year conference allows for additional feedback from

evaluators with information gathered up to that date if deemed necessary.

4.2 The Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher Performance Evaluation System

Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Fairfax, Virginia has developed the

Teacher Performance Evaluation System “to help both teachers and their evaluators

collect more comprehensive and accurate assessment data for judging teacher

effectiveness and to support quality teaching every day in every classroom” (Fairfax

County Public Schools, 2013, p. iv). In comparison to Danielson’s and Marzano’s

evaluation models, the FCPS model aligns with the goal of placing teachers at the center

of the evaluation. “Without capable, highly effective teachers in America’s classrooms,

no educational reform effort can possibly succeed. Moreover, without high quality

evaluation systems, we cannot know if we have high quality teachers” (Fairfax County

Public Schools, 2013, p. iv) As stated in the program handbook for 2012-2013, FCPS

differs from other models in the following ways: There is a focus on the relationship

between professional performance and improved learner academic achievement; sample

key elements for each of the teacher performance standards; matrices for the seven

standards that describe four levels of teacher performance; a system for documenting

teacher performances based on multiple data sources; a procedure for conducting

performance reviews that stresses accountability; promotes professional development;

and increases the involvement of teachers in the evaluation process and a support system

for providing assistance when needed.

The structure of the FCPS’s Teacher Performance Evaluation System consists of

seven performance standards, several key elements, and a performance matrix in order to

assign a rating. The Performance Standards are as follows:

 Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge

 Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning

 Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery

 Performance Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student Learning

 Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment

 Performance Standard 6: Professionalism

 Performance Standard 7: Student Academic Progress

Each Performance Standard is given an explanation in addition to the Key

Elements. For example, Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge – The teacher

demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental

needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences. Key Elements: Examples

may include, but are not limited to: The teacher:

 1.1 Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of subject content and

curriculum standards

 1.2 Demonstrates knowledge of best practices

 1.3 Knows how to differentiate to make subject content relevant, challenging, and

meaningful for all students

 1.4 Establishes instructional goals that demonstrate an accurate knowledge of

students and assigned subject content

The performance rating scale provides examples of behaviors at each rating level. In

Performance Standard 1, (1.) a Highly Effective teacher: is expert in the subject area and

has an understanding of current research in child development and how students learn,

designs highly relevant lessons that will challenge and motivate all students and highly

engage active learning; (2.) designs lessons that break down complex tasks and address

all learning needs, styles, and interests; (3.) projects high expectations and determination

and convinces all students that they will master the material; (4.) actively embeds a

“growth” mindset so that students take risks, learn from mistakes, and understand that

effective effort leads to achievement; and (5.) continually holds student interest and

makes connections to prior knowledge, experience, and reading. Teachers receive a rating

for each of the seven standards as well as a summative evaluation rating which is

intended to give an overall rating of the teacher’s performance. Performance Standards 1-

6 account for sixty percent of the evaluation, Standard 7, Student Academic Progress,

accounts for forty percent. A rating scale involves the following performance levels:

Ineffective = 1; Developing OR Needs Improvement = 2; Effective = 3; and Highly

Effective = 4. Scores are then multiplied by their weight, standards 1-6 = 1 and standard

7 = 4. The weighted total (points x weight) becomes the Cumulative Summative Rating.

Then, teachers are assigned a summative rating based on the following scale: Ineffective

= 10-19; Developing OR Needs Improvement = 20-25; Effective = 26-34; Highly

Effective = 35-40. Effective is the expected level of performance for teachers as stated by

the Teacher Performance Evaluation System.

FCPS has categorized teacher evaluations into seven Performance Standards

unlike the four Domains of the Danielson and Marzano frameworks. Similar to

Danielson’s framework are the explanations for teacher behaviors contained in the rating

scale. The explanations are very specific and encourage the teacher to consciously reflect

on meaningful teaching practices. For example, Performance Standard 2: Instructional

Planning, Ineffective: Does not plan lessons in advance and has little familiarity with

state standards and test requirements or the FCPS Program of Studies and strategic goals.

The expectations of performance at each level of the rating scale are presented in a

manner which communicates very clearly defined professional responsibilities. A

teacher’s professional growth in this model is also supported through the completion of a

self-assessment form, which is discussed during the self-assessment and goal setting

conference at the beginning of the school year. This form includes each Performance

Standard along with the Key Elements. Teachers have the opportunity to reflect and

record strengths and growth development for each standard. Having the opportunity to

reflect upon challenges and successes in the classroom is an extremely helpful tool for

teachers. “Evidence suggests that self-assessment is a critical component of the

evaluation process and can help a teacher to target areas for professional development”

(Fairfax County Public Schools, 2013, p. 6). Following the Self-Assessment, teachers

also complete a form titled: “Goal Setting for Student Progress”, which is meant to

identify a goal that produces measurable student progress. The following factors are

addressed: (1.) Setting, which describes the student population and special learning

circumstances; (2.) Content/Subject/Field Area, which is the topic area addressed based

on learner achievement, data analysis, or observational data; (3.) Baseline Data, which

states what is shown by the current data; (4.) Goal Statement, which is what teachers

want the learners/program to accomplish; and (5.) Means for Attaining Goal, which are

strategies used to accomplish the goal. Teachers record strategies and evidence along

with a desired date for accomplishing the activity. Goal progress is covered during the

mid-year review.

An evaluator working with the FCPS Teacher Performance Evaluation System

may collect information about teacher performance through several different methods

including: (1.) Observations with formal and informal classroom observations which

focus directly on the performance standards; (2.) Documentation Log with specific

required artifacts and teacher-selected artifacts that provide evidence of meeting certain

performance standards; (3.)Student Opinion Surveys used at the secondary level that

provide data which can influence teacher strategies in many of the performance

standards. Sharing survey results is optional in some cases; (4.)Structured Interview

designed to gather information from the teacher about his or her performance as it

pertains to the seven standards; (5.) Other Relevant Information that incudes data which

can be used for assessment provided that it is shared with the teacher. This includes, but

is not limited to, written communication about the teacher, patterns of discipline referrals

and follow-ups, and requests for student placement; (6.) Measures of Student Progress

including standardized test results and other pertinent data. For teachers who need

additional help improving their professional performance, evaluators may employ one or

both of the following including: Support Dialogue which is a school-level discussion

between an administrator and the teacher in order to address performance needs, or a

Performance Improvement Plan which is a plan developed by the teacher and evaluator to

identify strategies for improvement in specific areas. Teachers who receive a summative

evaluation at the end of the year also must attend a mid-year performance assessment

meeting with their evaluator in order to be given systematic feedback on their progress.

4.3 The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Instructional Performance Evaluation and

Growth System

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) in Miami, Florida utilize an

Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (IPEGS) as a means to

measure teacher effectiveness. Unlike the four Domain systems of Danielson and

Marzano, MDCPS identifies teacher performance through eight Performance Standards.

These include:

 Performance Standard 1: Learner Progress

 Performance Standard 2: Knowledge of Learners

 Performance Standard 3: Instructional Planning

 Performance Standard 4: Instructional Delivery

 Performance Standard 5: Assessment

 Performance Standard 6: Communication

 Performance Standard 7: Professionalism

 Performance Standard 8: Learning Environment

Each standard includes a description, for example: Performance Standard 1: Learner

Progress is based upon a discussion between the evaluator and teacher regarding student

performance data. A rating scale for this section is not applicable. Performance Standard

2: Knowledge of Learners: The teacher identifies and addresses the needs of learners by

demonstrating respect for individual differences, cultures, backgrounds, and learning

styles. Performance Standards also contain the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices

(FEAPs) which pertain to that standard. Performance Standard 2 contains FEAPs 1, 2, 3,

4. FEAP 1, for example reads as follows: Accomplished Practice #1: Assessment: The

professional teacher collects and uses data gathered from a variety of sources. These

sources include both traditional and alternate assessment strategies. Furthermore, the

teacher can identify and match the students’ instructional plans with their cognitive,

social, linguistic, cultural, emotional, and physical needs. Sample Key Indicators include,

but are not limited to: analyzes individuals' learning needs and practices techniques

which accommodate differences, including linguistic and cultural differences, draws from

a repertoire of techniques to accommodate differences in students' behavior, and

identifies potentially disruptive student behavior. The rating scale for standards 2-8

includes four levels of performance: Highly Effective, Effective, Developing/Needs

Improvement, and Unsatisfactory. Performance Standard 2: Knowledge of Learners, lists

Highly Effective as: “The teacher consistently meets the individual and diverse needs of

learners in a highly effective manner.” Effective characteristics are defined by restating

the performance standard.

MDCPS supports teacher growth through specific and observable examples as

listed in the FEAPs included with standards 2-8. FEAPs are similar to the Elements used

in Marzano’s teacher effectiveness evaluation model, and the Components used in

Danielson’s version of the same model. Knowledge of these indicators allows teachers to

align current practices with what is considered high quality teaching. In addition to this,

teachers complete an Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) as a means to

reflect on their current professional practices. As teachers develop the IPDP, they are

encouraged to review their IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluation from the previous

year to aid in determining areas of improvement. As a basis for the IDPD, teachers have

an option of one or more of the following: Student Achievement Data, School

Improvement Plan Objective, region or district data, or school/program initiatives as per

your job assignment, and/or IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluation from the

previous year. Teachers also develop an Individual Learning Goal, identify Professional

Development Activities, and analyze their Performance Outcome.

Evaluators can provide assistance during the evaluation process by scheduling a

Support Dialogue (SD) meeting. This meeting is conducted between observations one

and two. After the initial observation, evaluators may determine that a teacher is in need

of supportive actions that will aid in instructional performance improvement. In addition

to the SD, some teachers may need an individualized Improvement Plan (IP). The

evaluator will determine deficiencies in one or more of the Performance Standards and

work with the teacher to correct the identified deficiencies. A Formative Evaluation

meeting is conducted to track performance status in addition to a Summative

Performance Evaluation completed at the end of the school year. The Summative

Performance Evaluation includes teacher performance in relation to Learner Progress

(Standard 1) and Professional Practices (Standards 2-8). In Performance Standard 1:

Learner Progress Contribution to the total rating is worth a maximum of 50 points.

According to the rating scale, the point values are as follows: (1.) Highly Effective = 50;

(2.) Effective = 37.5; (3.) Developing/Needs Improvement = 25; and (4.) Unsatisfactory

= 12.5. IPEGS Performance Standards 2-8 are also worth a maximum of 50 points

comprehensively. This is divided up into thirty-two possible percentage points for

Observable Standards and eighteen possible points for Non-Observable Standards.

Observable Standards include:

 Performance Standard 2: Knowledge of Learners

 Performance Standard 3: Instructional Planning

 Performance Standard 4: Instructional Delivery and Engagement

 Performance Standard 8: Learning Environment

Each standard previously mentioned is worth eight possible points. The points are

divided as follows: (1.) Highly Effective = 8; (2.) Effective = 6; (3.) Developing/Needs

Improvement = 4; (4.) Unsatisfactory = 2. Non-Observable Standards include (1.)

Performance Standard 5: Assessment; (2.) Standard 6 = Communication; (3.)

Performance Standard 7: Professionalism. Non-Observable Standards are worth six

possible points each. They are divided as follows: (1.) Highly effective = 6; (2.) Effective

= 4.5; (3.) Developing/Needs Improvement = 3; (4.) Unsatisfactory = 1.5. A Unified

Summative Rating assigned to teachers at the culmination of the evaluation is determined

by adding the number of points earned in Performance Standards1 together with the

number earned in Standards 2-8. Out of a one hundred possible points, a teacher who

scores between: 89-100 is Highly Effective; 74-88 is Effective; 37-73 is Developing and

can only be given in years 1, 2, or 3 of teaching; 37-73 is Needs Improvement and can

only be given in the fourth year and above of teaching; and 0-36 is Unsatisfactory.

CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDATIONS

The current educational climate in America has shifted to a primary focus on

teacher effectiveness evaluation. The goal of creating future citizens who are able to

adequately use 21st century skills and help to firmly establish America’s standing as a

leader in the world has initiated a domino effect of reform across many aspects of the

educational system in this country. The growing attention caused by a significant

decrease in student achievement over subsequent years on standardized testing scores has

motivated leaders and policy makers to look closely at accountability factors related to

teacher effectiveness. Many factors contribute to explaining why America’s students are

not performing at desired levels. These include funding and varying socioeconomic

circumstances among others. The following discussion will concentrate on teacher

effectiveness evaluations currently being used to determine the various levels of teachers’

performance in the classroom. This discussion will focus on how current teacher

effectiveness evaluations compare to what educators know about how students learn, the

outcomes of increased attention on evaluating teachers, and what is anticipated for the

licensure of pre-service and practicing teachers.

5.1 How Students Learn

Current teacher effectiveness evaluation models in practice place little emphasis on

student learning outside of what is measured on standardized tests. An individual’s

thought processes evolve according to the constantly changing structure of knowledge

and ideas formed as they acquire new information. To simply accept information without

an attempt to understand the meaning of the information on a personal level may be

harmful to authentic learning. The application of critical thinking is the foundation for

creating an educational environment which promotes the integration of multiple

perspectives and the role of self-reflection as a means of acquiring true understanding.

From a philosophical standpoint, critical thinking generates an understanding of

our thoughts. The desire to know the meaning behind how things work and why they

work the way they do is enticing to the mind. Children from all cultures and backgrounds

are naturally curious and seek to find answers to questions. Psychologically, at some

point during their development, however, this characteristic begins to lose its allure

slowly. Perhaps it diminished due to behavioral influences to always act “right” or from

certain classroom disciplines which primarily stress the need to discover the “correct”

answer. Perhaps the longing to know what lies beneath the surface of what appears to be

true and factual is lost when children reach an age when self-consciousness no longer

allows them to ask questions with uninhibited wonder. Educators are in a position to

cultivate thinking when our students have become accustomed to mostly receiving and

storing information without first processing it through multiple lenses or examining it for

multiple layers of meaning. Encouraging children to identify and consider the influences

on their reasoning will develop their ability to determine for themselves what is important

and meaningful in their world. They should be mindful of their decisions and provide

evidence of thinking the way they do in order to make choices about personal beliefs,

behaviors, and goals. Teachers should play an active part in modeling the critical thinking

process for students. They should integrate their own ideas and reflections related to

subject matter into conversations with students so it becomes apparent that the body of

knowledge one possesses is constantly changing and progressing through analytical

interactions with others. Demonstrating understanding is an interactive process in the

classroom. Everyone involved should feel a sense of ownership over their contribution to

the collective knowledge gained by the group as well as confidence in knowing the

causes behind their own opinions.

Critical thinking, from a sociological perspective, is becoming increasingly vital

in our current educational system. Trying to address a solution to the achievement gap

and an overall decrease in test scores is complex and challenging. In the case of

improving the student achievement, a variety of causes can be assigned to the

disproportionate levels of success between children of minority groups and those of

affluent, white schools. Unfortunately, pressure for students to do well is placed heavily

on the schools. From a critical perspective, we must look at the issues facing our society

today and how certain attitudes are playing a role in the decline of student progress. Until

the dispositions and social behaviors of our population no longer sustain an environment

which produces exceedingly unequal levels of student accomplishment, as individuals we

must attempt to influence constructive thought and implement change. Critical

understanding of how various educational views affect our social surroundings and the

success of our students is a key component of teaching in our schools today.

To use the Miami-Dade County Public School’s Instructional Performance

Evaluation and Growth System as an example, Performance Standard 1: Learner Progress

is based upon student performance data. This standard alone is worth fifty percent of a

teacher’s total summative evaluation score. Standards 2-8 are divided up to account for

the remaining fifty percent. Fairfax County’s Teacher Performance Evaluation System

also places more emphasis on student performance data with Performance Standard 7:

Student Academic Progress representing forty percent of a teacher’s total score.

According to these models, important teaching practices regularly factored into everyday

instruction, such as student engagement, learning environment, and knowledge of

learners, are given less importance in terms of a teacher’s performance. Increasing the

amount of attention on student testing data is therefore subtracting attention away from

the individual needs of students. In terms of teacher evaluation, shifting the focus away

from the interaction teachers have with students and instead concentrating on numbers, a

perspective emerges that what goes on in the classroom to enhance student learning

outside of what is relevant to student testing date has significantly less importance.

Activities that will encourage students to engage in higher order thinking processes will

become fewer as a result of instruction which is more focused on mastering a specific set

of knowledge and skills.

5.2 Outcomes of Increased Attention on Teacher Evaluations

Society, teacher education programs, and administrators within school districts all

share a portion of the responsibility in shaping how curriculum and instruction are

developed and implemented. For teachers, it is important for them to act as reflective

practitioners and conscientious observers of their surroundings throughout their careers.

Teaching practices and subject matter should connect educational standards to issues

students currently are facing. Teaching methods being used to achieve desired scores on

standardized tests have overwhelmed student-focused and problem-solving based

instructional practices. From a critical point of view, we must look at the issues facing

our society today and determine how certain prevailing attitudes are affecting the decline

of student progress. The dispositions and social behaviors of our culture are significant

contributors to how students ultimately perform in school. Students construct their own

knowledge through hands-on learning. The experience of relating one’s understanding to

broader concepts is effective and necessary for building upon higher-order thinking skills

over time. Teachers should link together opinions shared by students and acknowledge

the backgrounds and experiences they bring to their reflections about beliefs, ethnicity,

and customs that exist in their home lives. Supporting the many cultural upbringings

students bring to the table is vital to achieving a successful educational atmosphere where

learning from each other’s different ways of thinking fuels an instructional objective.

Teachers should consider their current instructional practices as a way to gain insight into

how students learn and how they can connect students’ learning to the broader content

within the curriculum. Highlighting connections between subjects as an alternative to

assessing them in isolation is important to a student’s overall understanding and

comprehension. As a result, our students will have the opportunity to discover concepts

and skills in a multitude of fashions that work best for them. Teachers should generate

learning experiences that are authentic and student-centered, so that students can begin to

see that there is not always one correct answer to a question and not always one correct

way to arrive at a conclusion to a problem. The goal of some teacher evaluation systems,

as described earlier in this report, is to place quantitative results pertaining to student

achievement at the forefront of determining a teacher’s success at delivering a high-

quality education. As a consequence, the critical thinking and student-centered learning

environment loses its value as a focal point of good teaching practices. Achievement

scores based on standardized testing funnel knowledge and student performance down to

extremely narrow and specific elements. Unfortunately, when test scores such as these

are raised, the attention toward cultivating critical thinking is lessened and the skills

needed for our students to truly compete in an increasingly global society are greatly

compromised. As a complement to standardized testing, critical reflection can foster and

promote a wide range of skills and understanding that are actually transferrable to those

areas in which students are being tested.

All teachers and administrators contribute to the success of substantial and effective

instruction which supports an understanding of personal interpretation and expression as

a way to unite multiple perspectives and construct knowledge. The increased focus on

teacher effectiveness evaluations has helped to make teachers and administrators more

mindful of their approaches to instruction, assessment, and professional development.

Accountability for what students are learning and whether or not they are learning

effectively are significant aspects of a teacher’s performance. The opportunity for

teachers, administrators, and other school staff to meet and discuss student achievement

is a benefit of current evaluation models. New ideas and information that will aid student

learning have a greater ability to be utilized and shared because of the meetings and

observations scheduled during an evaluation.

5.3 Pre-Service Teachers, Licensure, and Current Evaluation Models

Pre-service teachers and those in the field who are keeping up-to-date with licensure

requirements are in need of support and knowledge about the teacher evaluation process.

For pre-service teachers especially, the importance of working collaboratively across all

discipline levels is a key element of high-quality instruction. With professional

development as the central idea to many of the evaluation systems currently being used,

an approach to instruction which is founded on the incorporation of multiple perspectives

and methods is essential to what is needed in schools today. The inclusion of

collaboration across disciplines into the professional development portion of evaluations

will aid in bringing teachers together. This will not only increase student understanding

and plant the seeds to begin thinking critically, but also provide the same understanding

for teachers as they develop instruction.

Confusion about the importance of the arts can be linked to the training given to

teachers in schools where the role of the arts is not valued and instead the subject of

accountability that is heavily dependent on test scores, is the main concern.

Unfortunately, the higher-level thought processes promoted by the arts are not easily

recognized on standardized tests. To better understand the need for the arts to play an

active role in preparing America’s students for the future, all teachers should recognize

the link between various cognitive skills acquired through the arts and how they are

applied to other academic areas. To avoid the possibility that art education will fall under

a workhouse mentality for the purpose of improving standardized test results, there needs

to be an understanding of the actual learning that takes place through art education. The

importance of various art forms in the context of when they were created, applying

aesthetic awareness to art and life, acquiring a feeling for translating thoughts, ideas,

images into a visual form, and learning how to accept multiple resolutions and

perspectives are key elements of an education in the arts. As an inherent part of good

teaching practices, teachers should reflect on their current behaviors to gain a deeper

understanding of how children learn and how we can connect their learning to the bigger

picture within the curriculum. Students should create meaningful work guided by a

teacher who interdependently connects learning from various disciplines to learning in

the visual arts. This type of approach is an asset to the collective purpose of creating

students who learn about the world around them through critical thinking and unique

problem-solving and who are able to apply it to the task at hand.

REFERENCES

Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3) 64-68.

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Greater understanding of the local community: A

community-based art education program for rural schools. Art Education, 53(2)

33-39.

Danielson, C. (2010/2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational

Leadership. 68 (4)

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teacher evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ:

The Danielson Group.

Duvall, H. (1998, June/July). Urban school funding inequities. Urban Educator, 7(4), 2-

Fairfax County Public Schools. (2013). Teacher performance evaluation program

handbook. 2012-2013. Fairfax, VA: Author.

Florida Education Standards Commission (2013). Professional competencies for

teachers of the twenty-first century. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of

Education.

Government Accounting Office (2009). Access to arts education: Inclusion of additional

questions in Education’s planned research would help explain why instruction

time has decreased for some students. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Indiana Department of Education (2011-2012). RISE evaluation and development

system. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Israel, D. (2009). Staying in school: Arts education and New York City high school

graduation rates. New York: The Center for Arts Education.

Marzano, R. J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,

70(3), 14-19.

Marzano, R. J. (2013). The Marzano teacher evaluation model. Englewood, CO:

Marzano Research Laboratory.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (2013). Instructional performance evaluation and

growth system. Miami, FL: Author.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.

Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Endowment for the Arts. (1988). Toward civilization. Washington, D.C.:

Author.

Olson, L (Ed.). (January, 1998). Quality counts: The urban challenge. Education Week,

7(17), 6-270.

President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (2011). Reinvesting in arts

education: Winning America’s future through creative schools. Washington,

D.C.: Author

Sabol, F. R. (1998). Needs Assessment and identification of urban art teachers in the

Western Region of the National Art Education Association. Unpublished report.

Reston, VA: National Art Education Foundation.

Sabol, F.R. (1999). Needs Assessment and identification of urban art teachers in the

Western Region of the National Art Education Association. Unpublished report.

Reston, VA: National Art Education Foundation.

Sabol F. R. (2005) Supervision and administration of art education programs in rural

and urban schools: Issues and answers. In B.B. Rughlow (Ed.), The changing

roles of arts leadership. (pp. 155-180). Reston, VA: National Art Education

Association.

Sabol, F.R. (2006) Professional development in art education: A study of needs, issues,

and concerns of art educators. Reston, VA: National Art Education Foundation.

Sabol, F.R. (2013). Seismic shifts in the education landscape: What do they mean for arts

education and arts education policy? Arts Education Policy Review, 114(1) 33-45.

Zellmer, M.B., Frontier, A., & Pheifer, D. (2006). What are NCLB’s instructional costs?

Educational Leadership, 64(3) 43-46

VITA

VITA.

My undergraduate studies in art education at Purdue University provided me with

a strong foundation of instructional understanding which emphasized the value of the arts

and its educational role at all levels. Multiple leadership roles as a public school teacher

enabled me to support and mentor other art teachers with the common belief that art

education should serve as a resource and opportunity for enrichment to the general

classroom curriculum.

In addition to receiving a Bachelor’s Degree in Art Education, a Master’s Degree

in Interdisciplinary Arts from Virginia Commonwealth University, and serving as an

elementary art teacher for Fairfax County Public Schools for seven years, a Master’s

Degree in Art Education from Purdue University has expanded my pedagogical beliefs

and instructional practices. I have learned new ways to positively and effectively

influence students to have a vested interest in the importance of art instruction in

elementary school and beyond

I would like to have an even greater impact on the methods and context in which

art is taught at the elementary school level. To achieve this, I plan on advancing to a

Doctoral Degree in Art Education from Purdue University.