Principals and teacher evaluation. The cognitive, relational, and organizational dimensions of working with low-performing teachers
| Published date | 03 September 2018 |
| Date | 03 September 2018 |
| Pages | 586-601 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2017-0100 |
| Author | Morgaen Donaldson,Madeline Mavrogordato |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Principals and teacher evaluation
The cognitive, relational, and
organizational dimensions of working
with low-performing teachers
Morgaen Donaldson
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA, and
Madeline Mavrogordato
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper i s to examine how school le aders use high-stakes t eacher
evaluation to improve and, if necessary, remove low-performing teachers in their schools.It explores how
cognitive, relation al and organizational fa ctors play a role in shaping th e way school leaders implem ent
teacher evaluation.
Design/methodology/approach –Using a database of in-depth interviews with 17 principals and assistant
principals, this study uses cross-case comparisons to examine one district’s efforts to improve the
performance of low-performing teachers through evaluation.
Findings –School leaders’framing of teacher perf ormance and their effort s to improve instructi on
reveal the cognitive , relational and organi zational aspects of wo rking with low-perfor ming teachers
and, if necessary, purs uing removal. Notably, th is study found that cogniti ve and relational factors
were important in school leaders’teacher improvement effo rts, but organizational fact ors were most salient
when attempting to remo ve teachers.
Research limitations/implications –Because evaluating and developing teachers has become such an
important aspect of school leaders’day to day work, this study suggests that school leaders could benefit
from more assistance from district personnel and that preparation programs should build in opportunities for
aspiring leaders to learn more about their role as evaluators.
Originality/value –The success or failure of te acher evaluation syst ems largely hinges on scho ol
leaders, yet there is sc ant research on how schoo l leaders make decisions to develop and remove
low-performing teac hers. This study sheds lig ht on the central role schoo l leaders play in implemen ting
high-stakes teache r evaluation.
Keywords Evaluation, Educational administration, Teacher learning, Educational policy
Paper type Research paper
Spurred on by Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waiver requirements, most states
have overhauled their teacher evaluation systems in the past decade (Steinberg and
Donaldson, 2016). One aim of these reforms is to identify low-performing teachers, provide
them with tools to improve, and, if needed, remove them. Yet, scant research examines this
important facet of teacher evaluation or the prominent role that principals play in it
(Kraft and Gilmour, 2016).
Principals and assistant principals are central to teacher evaluation systems and
influence their implementation. First, they conduct classroom observations, which often
constitute more than half of the overall evaluation score (Donaldson and Papay, 2015).
Second, they are responsible for providing feedback and development opportunities to
teachers (Goldring et al., 2015). Third, they determine whether to take action to remove
teachers who consistently under-perform ( Jacob, 2011). Principals also influence teacher
evaluation indirectly by shaping relational trust within schools (Leithwood et al., 2004;
Tschannen-Moran, 2014), which helps facilitate the implementation of teacher evaluation
policies. The extant literature thus suggests that the success of teacher evaluation systems
hinges largely on principals.
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 56 No. 6, 2018
pp. 586-601
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-08-2017-0100
Received 2 September 2017
Revised 20 January 2018
29 March 2018
15 May 2018
Accepted 17 May 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
586
JEA
56,6
Our study addresses the gap in research on the critical role principals play in
implementing high-stakes teacher evaluation, particularly as it relates to low-performing
teachers. Using in-depth interviews with 17 principals and assistant principals, we examine
one district’s efforts to improve and, if necessary, remove low-performing teachers, as
defined by the district’s teacher evaluation system. We further characterize how cognitive,
relational and organizational factors shape the way principals engage in these activities.
Background
Typified by the Widget Effect (Weisberg et al., 2009), commentators have decried the fact
that few teachers received unsatisfactory evaluation ratings and even fewer were
terminated for performance. Even teachers unions acknowledged that teacher evaluation
systems were not working. Randi Weingarten (2011), president of the American Federation
of Teachers, declared “Our aim is to have a comprehensive, fair, transparent and expedient
process that identifies, improves and—if necessary—removes ineffective teachers”.
A growing literature examines how principals identify low-performing teachers through
summative evaluation ratings. Researchers have examined whether principals’ratings of
teachers predict their value added scores (e.g. Harris et al., 2014), are similar in high- and
low-stakes evaluations (Grissom and Loeb, 2017), and vary across settings (Kraft and
Gilmour, 2017). Much less research explores how principals work with low-performing
teachers to improve their practice and, if necessary, remove them.
Developing low-performing teachers
Policymakers often justify adopting higher-stakes teacher evaluation policies by arguing
that these policies promote teacher professional growth (Kraft and Gilmour, 2016). Based on
interviews of 24 principals Kraft and Gilmour (2016) found that principals reported
substantial obstacles to using evaluation to help teachers improve. These included concerns
about increased demands on their time, lack of comfort providing feedback outside of
familiar subject areas or grade levels, and limited training on elements of the evaluation
system. Kraft and Gilmour (2016) assert that principals’lack of training and discomfort
prompted them to tend to provide reinforcement instead of critical feedback to teachers.
Given our study’s focus on low-performing teachers, these challenges are critical.
Moreover, in their study of eight schools in New Orleans, Marsh et al. (2017) found that
organizational conditions could mitigate principals’tendency to shy away from critical
feedback in evaluations. The authors found that schools that enlisted teacher leaders and
administrators beyond the principal to conduct observations facilitated instructional
improvement. They note that “this increased capacity […] granted each evaluator enough
time to thoughtfully complete rubric ratings and provide support”(p. 21).
Thus, organizational context and principals’self-efficacy as evaluators appear to
mediate principals’ability to use evaluation to develop teachers’practice. Notably, few
studies focus on how principals work with low-performing teachers specifically.
Dismissing low-performing teachers
Rates of teacher dismissal have historically been quite low (Donaldson and Papay, 2015).
According to one study, 0.01–0.03 percent of teachers were dismissed annually for
performance across 12 large districts (Weisberg et al., 2009). Although some studies suggest
that new evaluation systems have increased dismissal (Dee and Wyckoff, 2013), others
indicate that rates remain low even when policies make it easier to terminate teachers for
performance. Jacob’s (2011) examination of the removal of non-tenured teachers in Chicago
Public Schools found that while the dismissal of first-year teachers increased 9 percent, on
average, after the policy change, more than half of dismissed teachers were subsequently
587
Principals
and teacher
evaluation
To continue reading
Request your trial