teacher evaluation and professional development

Teacher Evaluation and the Problem ofProfessional DevelopmentBy Mark A. Smylie

http://ruepi.uic.edu

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark A. Smylie is aProfessor Emeritus ofEducation PolicyStudies in the Collegeof Education at theUniversity of Illinoisat Chicago.

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

July 2014

Vol. 3, Book 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDuring the past 10 to 15 years,nearly every state and schooldistrict across the nation hasbegun to dramatically overhaultheir evaluation systems forteachers. Such evaluation systemsare ultimately aimed at improvingteachers’ instructional practices.However, the evidence on theefficacy and effectiveness of thesesystems is weak and equivocal atbest. One of the major factorsassociated with the lack of impactof these systems is thetroublesome relationship betweenevaluation and professionaldevelopment—the opportunitiesfor teachers to learn and improvetheir practice in response to andbeyond the process of evaluationitself. Policies governing teacherevaluation systems tend to makeonly vague and weak provisionsfor professional development, andthey fail to ensure that these

opportunities are of high qualityand of value in improving practice.If states are to improve theeffectiveness of their teacherevaluation systems, they shouldmake the provision of high qualityprofessional development to allteachers a key element of thesesystems. Without more attentionto professional development as akey complement to evaluation,recently developed teacherevaluation systems will likely failto improve teachers’ practices inthe ways theorized by theirproponents.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policyBRIEF

2

INTRODUCTIONEducator evaluation has beenundergoing extensive changesduring the past 10 to 15 years innearly every state and school districtacross the nation. Most states aredramatically overhauling theirevaluations systems for bothteachers and administrators.1

Indeed, evaluations are beingdeveloped and implemented atnearly every step of the teachingoccupation, from admission toinitial preparation programs, tolicensure and certification, to on-the-job performance reviews, totenure decisions, to retention andtermination decisions.

The proliferation of state and localpolicy making in the area ofeducator evaluation is driven bythree related forces.2 The first is ageneral consensus that the practiceof educator evaluation is in anineffectual state and has been for avery long time. The second is thestrong impetus from the federallevel, largely through the U.S.Department of Education’s Race tothe Top initiative, that has providedpolitical and financial fuel to revampevaluation systems. The third is alogic, a “theory-of-action”, that neweducator evaluation systems willserve as effective instruments foreducational improvement. An

outgrowth of the current standardsand accountability movement, thislogic generally follows that educatorevaluation systems can improvepractice through a combination of“drivers”. These drivers include thespecification of models ofpresumably efficacious practice todirect performance and themeasurement of performanceagainst those models; the incentivesof high stakes, that is, tyingperformance to particular job-related consequences to motivateperformance and improvement; andopportunities for learning andimprovement for those who do notperform particularly well.

There is an intuitive sensibility tothis logic that makes evaluationalmost an article of faith in policymaking. As Mary Kennedy observes,it seems that recently, “whenevernew problems with teachers areidentified, one of the solutionsfrequently proposed is to introducea new assessment.”3 However, theevidence on the efficacy of this logicis weak and equivocal at best. Someresearchers argue that educatorevaluation systems can influenceeducator behavior, sometimes inunintended and negative ways.4

Other researchers contend thatevaluation, notably teacherevaluation, has had little meaningfulimpact. For example, Joseph Murphy

Educator evaluation

has been

undergoing

extensive changes

during the past 10

to 15 years in nearly

every state and

school district

across the nation.

1 Linda Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters forEffectiveness and Improvement (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2013).

2 Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness andImprovement; Mary Kennedy, “The Uncertain Relationship Between Teacher Assessment andTeacher Quality.” In Mary Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher Assessment and the Quest for Teacher Quality:A Handbook (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010): 1-6; Joseph Murphy, Philip Hallinger, andRonald H. Heck. “Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Case of the Missing Clothes.” EducationalResearcher, 42, no. 6 (2013): 349-354.

3 Mary Kennedy, “The Uncertain Relationship Between Teacher Assessment and Teacher Quality.”4.

4 E.g., Brian Rowan, “Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the OrganizationalDesign of Schools.” Review of Research in Education, 16, no. 1 (1990): 353-389; Joseph Murphy,Philip Hallinger, and Ronald H. Heck. “Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Case of the MissingClothes.”

Teacher Evaluation and the Problem of Professional Development

policyBRIEF

3http://ruepi.uic.edu

and his colleagues conclude in theirreview of empirical research thatteacher evaluation “for most of thetwentieth century had very littleinfluence on much of anything ofsubstance…. The newer, moresubstantive teacher evaluationsystems of the last 15 years have notbeen shown to power schoolimprovement, as defined in terms ofstudent learning either.”5 Still otherresearchers point to the equivocalnature of the evidence, to the“uncertain” relationship of educatorevaluation to quality, performance,and improvement.6

This lack of impact and “uncertainty”has been attributed to a number ofdifferent factors. One is themisalignment between the design ofevaluation systems andunderstandings of the tasks ofteaching and processes of learning toteach and the improvement ofpractice.7 Other factors includemyriad technical shortcomings ofmost evaluation systems to date,implementation problems, politicaland legal complexities, and conflictswith the motivational structures ofthe teaching occupation.8 One factormost consistently associated with thelack of impact is the troublesomerelationship between evaluation andprofessional development, that is,opportunities for teachers to learnand to improve their practice inresponse to and beyond the processof evaluation itself.

The purpose of this brief to examinethe issue of professionaldevelopment in educatorevaluation, focusing in particular onteacher evaluation and professionaldevelopment and on recent state-level teacher evaluation policy. Idiscuss two dimensions of the issue.The first is what might be called the“weak link problem”. The second iswhat might be called the “weakquality problem”. The weak linkproblem is that despite longstandingunderstanding of the importance ofprofessional development to theefficacy of evaluation as a means ofimprovement, most teacherevaluation systems, including thosedeveloped within the past decade,give professional development shortshrift, make vague and weakprovisions for professionaldevelopment, or leave it toindividual teachers or their schoolsand school districts to make suchlinkages themselves. The weakquality problem is that even ifevaluation systems were to stipulatelinks to opportunities forprofessional learning anddevelopment, those opportunitiesmay be of poor quality and thus oflittle value in improving practice.Indeed, few if any teacher evaluationpolicies also attempt to address theweak quality problem byconcurrently seeking improvementin professional development. Inshort, the matter of evaluation andprofessional development is not

5 Joseph Murphy, Philip Hallinger, and Ronald H. Heck, “Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Caseof the Missing Clothes,” 350.

6 Mary Kennedy, “The Uncertain Relationship Between Teacher Assessment and Teacher Quality.”7 Barbara B. Howard and Arlen R. Gullickson, “Setting Standards for Teacher Evaluation.” In Mary

K. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher Assessment and the Quest for Teacher Quality: A Handbook (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010): 337-353.

8 Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness andImprovement; Douglas Mitchell, Flora Ortiz, and Tedi K. Mitchell, Work Orientation and JobPerformance: The Cultural Basis of Teaching Rewards and Incentives (Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press: 1987); Brian Rowan, “Commitment and Control: AlternativeStrategies for the Organizational Design of Schools.”

One factor most

consistently

associated with the

lack of impact is the

troublesome

relationship

between evaluation

and professional

development, that

is, opportunities for

teachers to learn

and to improve their

practice in response

to and beyond the

process of

evaluation itself.


policyBRIEF

4

only a problem of linking evaluationto opportunities for professionaldevelopment but also a problem ofthe quality of the professionaldevelopment opportunities to whichevaluation may be linked.

The next section examinesarguments and evidence of theimportance of the relationshipbetween teacher evaluation andprofessional development forimprovement. Following thatdiscussion, the weak link problem isexplored looking at examples ofrecent state teacher evaluationsystems as illustrations. Illinois’Performance Evaluation Reform Act(PERA) of 2011 is used as anillustration of this problem at work.This is followed by an examinationof the weak quality problem lookingin particular at the state ofprofessional developmentopportunities available generally toteachers. The brief concludes withseveral recommendations to addressboth the weak link and the weakquality problems.

THE IMPORTANCE OFPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT TOEVALUATIONEvaluation as a stand-alone policyprocess is unlikely to have mucheffect. It is by itself a “weak lever” forsignificant and meaningfulimprovement of teacherperformance and practice. This is

the conclusion that is seenrepeatedly in the literature onteacher evaluation.9Why might thisbe the case? The answer lies in therelationship between evaluation andthe related opportunities thatteachers have to learn, develop, andimprove.

Evaluation is seen as most effectivewhen it is part of what LindaDarling-Hammond calls a strong“teaching and learning system” thatsupports continuous improvementof individual teachers, groups ofteachers, and the teachingoccupation as a whole.10 Accordingto Darling-Hammond, such a systemwould bring evaluation andopportunities for teacher learningtogether with other elements into anintegrated whole to promoteteachers’ performance andimprovement at every stage of theircareers. She writes:

“[I]t is important to link both formalprofessional development and job-embedded learning opportunities tothe evaluation system. Evaluationalone will not improve practice.Productive feedback must beaccompanied by opportunities tolearn. Evaluations should triggercontinuous goal-setting for areasteachers want to work on, specificprofessional development supportsand coaching, and opportunities toshare expertise, as part ofrecognizing teachers’ strengths andneeds.”11

9 E.g., Douglas Mitchell, Flora Ortiz, and Tedi K. Mitchell,Work Orientation and Job Performance:The Cultural Basis of Teaching Rewards and Incentives; Brian Rowan, “Commitment andControl: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational Design of Schools.”

10 Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness andImprovement, 3.

11 Ibid, 99.

Evaluation is seen

as most effective

when it is part of

what Linda Darling-

Hammond calls a

strong “teaching

and learning

system” that

supports

continuous

improvement of

individual teachers,

groups of teachers,

and the teaching

occupation as a

whole.


policyBRIEF


Similar arguments have been madeby others to embed evaluation in abroader coherent “infrastructure” ofteacher learning, improvement, andaccountability across the careerspan.12 Murphy and his colleaguesconclude from their review ofresearch on effective schools andschool improvement thatadministrators’ best “leverage” forpromoting instructionalimprovement at the school level is tomake evaluation part of several“bundles” of actions that emphasizethe “facilitative” functions ofleadership rather than simply the“supervisory and control”functions.13 These bundles wouldinclude attention to providingactionable feedback, creatingcontexts for collective work, and“creating systems in which teachershave the opportunity to routinelydevelop and refine their skills.”14

The importance of linkingevaluation and professionaldevelopment can be seen in variousnational research-based guidelinesand models for designing effectiveteacher evaluation policies andprograms. For example, among theeight key components of effectivecomprehensive teacher evaluationmodels identified by the Center onGreat Teachers and Leaders of theAmerican Institutes of Research is“alignment with professional

development.”15 In its practicalguide to designing comprehensiveteacher evaluation systems, theCenter argues for the need to design“an aligned teacher evaluation andprofessional learning system.”16 Itconcludes that “providing job-embedded, ongoing, individualized,and collaborative professionallearning and support is necessaryfor teacher evaluation to havepositive impacts on teacherpractice.” We discuss the types ofprofessional development that maybe most conducive to teacherimprovement later in this brief.

Research on school improvementand improvement of classroominstruction draws similarconclusions.17 Most often, individualand organizational improvement isbest accomplished through strategiccombinations of multiple “levers” ormechanisms of change,combinations that are best suited toimprovement objectives and to thepersons and contexts involved.These levers include incentives,accountability controls such asstandards and evaluations, andopportunities for learning anddevelopment. For example, in theirreview of research on major schoolimprovement designs, Mark Smylieand George Perry found that thosethat were the most successfulembodied combinations of these

Most often,

individual and

organizational

improvement is best

accomplished

through strategic

combinations of

multiple “levers” or

mechanisms of

change,

combinations that

are best suited to

improvement

objectives and to

the persons and

contexts involved. 12 E.g., Pamela Moss, “Thinking Systemically about Assessment Practice.” In Mary M. Kennedy(Ed.). Teacher Assessment and the Quest for Teacher Quality: A Handbook (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010): 355-374; David K. Cohen, “Teacher Quality: An American Educational Dilemma.” InMary M. Kennedy (Ed.). Teacher Assessment and the Quest for Teacher Quality: A Handbook (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010): 375-401.

13 Joseph Murphy, Philip Hallinger, and Ronald H. Heck, “Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Caseof the Missing Clothes,” 352.

14 Ibid.15 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, Teacher Evaluation Models in Practice (Washington, DC:

American Institutes of Research, 2013).16 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, A Practical Guide for Designing Comprehensive Teacher

Evaluation Systems (Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research, 2013).17 Mark A. Smylie and George W. Perry, Jr., “Restructuring Schools for Improving Teaching.” In

Andrew Hargreaves, Ann Lieberman, Michael Fullan, and David Hopkins (Eds.). InternationalHandbook of Educational Change (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1998): 976-1005.


policyBRIEF

6

levers and notably each includedopportunities for learning anddevelopment.18 In a subsequentstudy of school improvement inChicago elementary schools, Smylieand his colleagues found thatschools that were the mostsuccessful in initiating andsustaining improvement at theorganizational and classroom levelsemployed at least two if not three ofthese types of levers in strategiccombination.19 Schools that reliedon only one, whether it beaccountability or development,failed to make meaningimprovement. If improvement wastriggered it did not last very longwithout additional levers,particularly development levers.

THE WEAK LINK PROBLEMAccording to Howard andGullickson, one of the primary“threats” to the potential of teacherevaluation to improve teaching isthe lack of connection toprofessional development.20 This is,as described in the introduction, theweak link problem.

It is difficult to determine the extentof the weak link problem. There arefew studies of the specifics ofteacher evaluation policies andpractices and teachers’ experienceswith them. One such study, a

national survey of more than 1,000teachers across the country, foundthat only a quarter of teachersconsidered their most recent formalevaluations useful and effective.21 Aprimary reason for suchdissatisfaction is provided byanother study of experiences of agroup of teachers associated withthe National Board of ProfessionalTeaching Standards with theirdistricts’ teacher evaluationpolicies.22 These teachers reportedthat these polices focused little onhow to improve classroom practice.They observed that these policieswere rarely used to help teachersaccess opportunities for professionallearning development to addresstheir particular needs.

In general, provisions for learningand development in teachereducation policy, beyond thelearning that might occur throughthe specification of standards andmodels of instruction embodiedtherein, include: provisions that arenarrowly focused on improvingpoorly performing teachers; feedbackto these teachers in the forms ofscores and reports, post-observationconferencing, and coaching; andprofessional development plansdeveloped with a teacher’ssupervisor. While such plans could beshaped in any number of ways, theyare generally tailored to addressweaknesses identified by the

18 Mark A. Smylie and George W. Perry, Jr., “Restructuring Schools for Improving Teaching.”19 Mark A. Smylie, Stacy A. Wenzel, and Carol R. Fendt, “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge:

Lessons on Leadership for School Development.” In Joseph Murphy and Amanda Datnow(Eds.). Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive School Reforms (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin,2003): 135-158.

20 Barbara B. Howard and Arlen R. Gullickson, “Setting Standards for Teacher Evaluation.”21 Ann Duffet, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Elena Silva, Waiting to be Won Over:

Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform (Washington, DC: Education Sector:2008).

22 Accomplished California Teachers, A Quality Teacher in Every Classroom: Creating a TeacherEvaluation System that Works for California (Stanford, CA: National Board Resource Center,Stanford University: 2010), as cited in Linda Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher EvaluationRight: What Really Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement.

One of the primary

“threats” to the

potential of teacher

evaluation to

improve teaching is

the lack of

connection to

professional

development.


policyBRIEF


evaluation. However, there areseveral potential problems andlimitations of such provisions. Byfocusing mostly on teachers whoperform poorly on an evaluation,these provisions do not aimprofessional developmentopportunities on the large andremaining group of teachers whohave performed at least “wellenough”. As a result, this latter groupof teachers is left out of potentialprofessional development. Byfocusing on individual teachers whoperform poorly, the provisions alsofail to support collective learningamong teachers. The provisionsaccordingly contribute more toindividual teacher improvement thanschool-wide improvement. Moreover,potential problems with the qualityand accuracy of evaluation reportsweaken their potential as a source ofteacher information and learning.Similarly, supervisors responding toteacher evaluations may have limitedcapabilities, commitments, time, andpreparation to engage in post-conferencing and coachingeffectively.

Illinois’ PERA concretely illustratesthe weak link problem.23 PERAincludes provisions for professionaldevelopment only for teachers ratedas “needing improvement” or“unsatisfactory”. A district is requiredto develop and commence a 90-school day remediation plandesigned to correct deficiencies forany teacher with an unsatisfactoryrating. Moreover, school districts areprovided with the discretion, but notrequired, to attach personal growthplans to their own locally-

development evaluation plans. Whileprofessional development/remediation plans can last for up totwo school years, there is no requiredduration of a plan.24 Indeed,professional development is onlyweakly tied to teacher evaluationunder PERA, and it is targeted only atindividual teachers who have failed toperform adequately. Moreover, thelaw says very little about the quality ofthe professional developmentopportunities available to teacherthat follow from evaluations, which ischaracterized as the weak qualityproblem.

THE WEAK QUALITYPROBLEMJust as some state teacher evaluationpolicies include some type of link toprofessional development, somepolicies also attempt to address theweak quality problem. However,these efforts are rather narrow andpertain primarily to particularprovisions in the evaluation policiesthemselves. For example, some plansrequire that evaluators or supervisorswho will conduct evaluations receivetraining in conveying evaluationresults, helping poorly performingteachers develop professionaldevelopment or remediation plans,and perhaps in providing coaching tobeginning teachers or to poorlyperforming veteran teachers toaddress weaknesses identified intheir evaluations. This is generallyhow far current state evaluationpolicies go to address the weakquality problem. Beyond suchprovisions, poorly performing

23 Illinois State Board of Education, Non-regulatory guidance 11-02 on the Performance EvaluationReform Act and Senate Bill 7. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education, 2011).

24 In some cases, the length of professional development plans may be capped at less than twoyears if restricted by local collective bargaining agreements.

Professional

development is only

weakly tied to

teacher evaluation

under PERA, and it

is targeted only at

individual teachers

who have failed to

perform adequately.


policyBRIEF

8

teachers and beginning teachers whomay be specifically identified inevaluation policies as subject to post-evaluation professional developmentare left with opportunities forprofessional learning andimprovement that are routinelyavailable in their schools and schooldistricts. So too are all other teacherswho seek to relate evaluation toprofessional learning andimprovement.

The condition of such professionaldevelopment opportunities is notgood. Historically, professionaldevelopment has been characterizedas a “waster of time”, “ill-conceived”,“ineffective”, and an exercise thatoften leaves teachers more cynicaland no more knowledgeable orcommitted than before.25 Thiscritique is reflected in surveys ofteachers on their experiences withprofessional development, whoreport in large proportions thatprofessional developmentopportunities provided by theirschools and school districts areamong their least valuable sources oflearning and not particularly usefulfor addressing classroom problems.26

Recent surveys of the professionaldevelopment activities experiencedby teachers show them to be a“patchwork of opportunities—formal

and informal, mandatory andvoluntary, serendipitous andplanned.”27 Although most teachersparticipate in some kind ofprofessional development each year,most of what they experience is notdesigned for “powerful professionallearning.”28 Most professionaldevelopment opportunities thatteachers experience consist of formalshort-term or one-shot workshops,conferences, and training sessions.Intensity and duration of learningexperiences are low. Very fewteachers have the opportunity tostudy any aspect of teaching for morethan a day or two. Summing up theirstudy of professional development,Darling-Hammond and hercolleagues conclude: “Shortworkshops of the sort found to triggerlittle change in practice are the mostcommon learning opportunity forU.S. teachers.”29

We have known better for a longtime. There is long-standing body ofresearch and a related consensusview that identifies the qualities andcharacteristics of effectiveprofessional development forteachers and that can guide policyand practice. These qualities andcharacteristics can be seen inguidelines for effective professionaldevelopment presented more than

25 Mark A. Smylie, Elaine Allensworth, Rebecca C. Greenberg, Rodney Harris, and Stuart Luppescu,Teacher Professional Development in Chicago: Supporting Effective Practice. (Chicago:Consortium on Chicago School Research, 2001), 7-8.

26 Mark A. Smylie, “Teachers’ View of the Effectiveness of Sources of Learning to Teach.”Elementary School Journal, 89, no. 5 (1989): 543-558; Ruth C. Wei, Linda Darling-Hammond, andFrank Adamson. Professional Learning in the United States: Trends and Challenges (Dallas, TX:National Staff Development Council: 2010).

27 Darrel Drury and Justin Baer, The American Public School Teacher: Past, Present, and Future(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2011), 273.

28 Ruth C. Wei, Linda Darling-Hammond, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and SteliosOrphanos, Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on TeacherDevelopment in the U.S. and Abroad (Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council, 2009), 60.

29 Linda Darling-Hammond, Debra Meyerson, Michelle LaPointe, and Margaret T. Orr, PreparingPrincipals for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and be Able to Do (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2009), 102.

There is a long-

standing body of

research and a

related consensus

view that identifies

the qualities and

characteristics of

effective

professional

development for

teachers that can

guide policy and

practice.


policyBRIEF


30 John C. Parker, “Guidelines for In-service Education.” In Nelson B. Henry (Ed.), In-Service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators.The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1957): 103-128.

31 Ruth C. Wei, Linda Darling-Hammond, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos, Professional Learning in the LearningProfession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and Abroad, 3, 6, 9, 13. See also Michael S. Garet, Andrew C. Porter, LauraDesimone, Beatrice F. Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon, “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample ofTeachers.” American Educational Research Journal, 38, no. 4 (2001): 915-945.

32 National Staff Development Council, Standards for Staff Development, Middle Level Edition (Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council,1994); National Staff Development Council, Standards for Staff Development, Middle Level Edition (Oxford, OH: National Staff DevelopmentCouncil, 1995); National Staff Development Council, Standards for Staff Development, Middle Level Edition (Oxford, OH: National StaffDevelopment Council, 2001).

33 Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning (Oxford, OH: Learning Forward, 2011). Retrieved on April 1, 2014 fromhttp://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning#.UzsRdq1dVF8.

55 years ago by the National Societyfor the Study of Education.30 Asmore recently summarized by RuthWei and her colleagues, researchcontains lessons about the content,processes, and contexts foreffective professional learning thatcan improve teaching practice andstudent learning.31

1. Content of professionaldevelopment should focus onconcrete tasks of teaching ratherthan abstract discussions ofteaching, on specific pedagogicalskills, and on how to teachspecific kinds of content tolearners.

2. Processes of professionaldevelopment should be designedto according to how teacherslearn. Particularly effectiveprocesses include modeling,constructing opportunities forpractice and reflection on newpractices. Active learning aroundreal problems of practice is key.Learning experiences are bestwhen sustained and intensiveand focused on the work ofteaching. Continuous dialog inprofessional community,examination of teaching practiceand student performance canalso be effective in developingand enacting more effectivepractices.

3. Professional development is

most effective if it is a coherentpart of a larger schoolimprovement effort. Curriculum,student assessments, standards,and teacher professionaldevelopment should be linkedinto a coherent system oflearning and improvement. Thebest learning occurs in job-embedded, collaborativecommunity contexts, rather thansimply in formal events (e.g.,courses, workshops, conferences,etc.). These professionalcommunity contexts exist bothwithin the school and beyond it.

This research has been translatedinto national standards for highquality professional development.The National Staff DevelopmentCouncil (NSDC) issued standards in1994 and 1995 for middle leveleducators and elementary schooleducators respectively and reissueda combined set of standards in2001.32 In 2011, Learning Forward,the renamed NSDC, issued a thirditeration of the standards.33 Anoutline of these standards appearsin Sidebar 1. Yet, despite theresearch evidence and its translationinto national standards to guidedesign and implementation, thepractice of professionaldevelopment, by all counts, remainsgenerally ineffectual andparticularly inadequate as a follow-up to evaluation.

RECOMMENDATIONS FORIMPROVING THERELATIONSHIP BETWEENEVALUATION ANDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTThis analysis suggests threerecommendations for improvingthe relationship between teacherevaluation and professionaldevelopment, and thus forincreasing the likelihood thatteacher evaluation will contributeto individual teacher improvementand indeed whole schoolimprovement. Theserecommendations address both the“weak link problem” and the “weakquality problem” of the currentrelationship between evaluationand professional development.

RECOMMENDATION 1.STRENGTHEN LINKS TOPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT WITHINTEACHER EVALUATIONSYSTEMS.

Evaluation systems should not onlybe linked to student learningstandards, rigorous curriculum,and efficacious models ofinstruction on the “front end”.Evaluation systems should also belinked to viable and efficaciousmeans of teacher professionaldevelopment on the “back end”.Together, these linkages should


policyBRIEF

10

Standards for Professional Learning, 2011: An Outline

Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and resultsfor all students:

• Occurs within learning communities committed to continuousimprovement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.

• Requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources foreducator learning.

• Integrates theories, research, and models of human learning toachieve its intended outcomes.

• Aligns its outcomes with educator performance and studentcurriculum standards.

• Requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, andcreate support systems for professional learning.

• Uses a variety of sources and types of student, educator, andsystem data to plan, assess, and evaluation professional learning.

• Applies research on change and sustains support forimplementation of professional learning for long-term change.

Source: Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning(Oxford, OH: Learning Forward, 2011). Retrieved on April 1, 2014 fromhttp://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning#.UzsRdq1dVF8.


policyBRIEF


form a “system” of coherentprocedural and substantiverelationships among the goals ofevaluation (as expressed by theimplementation of curricula andmodels of instruction in the pursuitof learning outcomes), evaluationdesigns and processes, and means ofteacher learning and improvement.

The information generated byevaluations should drive individualteacher and whole-staff learning andimprovement. All teachers, notsimply beginning teachers and thosewho might perform poorly onevaluations, should be part of thissystem. Evaluation policies, as manydo now, should specify intensive,individual means of support forbeginning teachers and for thoseteachers who perform poorly (e.g.,professional development andremediation plans, individualcoaching, etc.). But if evaluationsystems are to contribute morewidely to school improvement, allteachers, regardless of how well theyperform, should be required todevelop professional developmentgoals and plans for achieving them.These goals and plans could haveindividual components to them(e.g., areas of practice that eachteacher might want or need todevelop further). And they may beidiosyncratic according to teachers’particular learning andimprovement needs and objectives.However, so that these individualdevelopment efforts “add up” tosomething greater—such as wholeschool improvement—individualteachers’ professional developmentplans should be linked to andembedded within school-level

improvement planning andinitiatives. These links can bespecified in evaluation policy andadministrative regulations.

RECOMMENDATION 2.IMPROVE THE QUALITY OFPROFESSIONAL LEARNINGAND DEVELOPMENTOPPORTUNITIES FORTEACHERS.

This recommendation addresses the“weak quality” problem ofprofessional development generallyand professional developmentspecifically linked to teacherevaluation. As the Center on GreatTeachers and Leaders contends,states and districts must stopproviding fragmented, discrete, andultimately ineffective workshops.Instead, they should providesustained, coherent, and meaningfulprofessional learning opportunitiesfor teachers; these opportunitiesshould be aligned to teacherevaluations to provide a sharedunderstanding of effective practices,provide evidence-based feedback toteachers, and include measures forteacher learning and collaborationthroughout the evaluation process.34

The Center also stresses thatprofessional learning activitiesthemselves should be evaluated fortheir effectiveness, moving beyond“simple evaluation” toward anongoing analysis of quality oflearning opportunities and teacherparticipation, support, andoutcomes related to studentachievement. It concludes:“Investing in the technicalinfrastructure to collect, link, andanalyze professional developmentand teacher evaluation results over

So that these

individual

development efforts

“add up” to

something greater–

such as whole

school

improvement–

individual teachers’

professional

development plans

should be linked

and embedded

within school-level

improvement

planning and

initiatives.

34 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, A Practical Guide for Designing Comprehensive TeacherEvaluation Systems.


policyBRIEF

12

If the

characteristics and

qualities of effective

professional

development have

been known for so

long, why has there

been so little

change in the

prevailing

inadequate and

ineffective practice

of professional

development?

time may improve the overalleffectiveness of professionallearning efforts.”35

States can do a number of things tostrengthen the quality ofprofessional learning anddevelopment. Inasmuch as stateshave already adopted standards forstudent learning and professionalpractices of both teachers andadministrators, it is a short step toalso adopt and enforce standards forprofessional development. Asdiscussed earlier in this brief, thereis substantial agreement in researchabout the characteristics of effectiveteacher professional development,characteristics that follow fromunderstandings of how teacherslearn to teach and how individualand organizational change occurs.Moreover, there exist recognizednational standards that embodythese characteristics that can readilybe adopted as state and districtpolicy and incorporated into teacherevaluation policy.36 Indeed as of onefairly recent count, 40 states hadadopted, adapted, or endorsed the2001 standards of the National StaffDevelopment Council.37 Thechallenge has come in influencingpractice to reflect the standards. Thisleads to the third recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 3.BUILD SCHOOL ANDDISTRICT CAPACITY,MOTIVATION, ANDACCOUNTABILITY TOPROVIDE HIGH QUALITYPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT.

It is not enough to simply strengthenlinks between teacher evaluationand professional development andto adopt standards to specify thequalities and characteristics of thatprofessional development. Schoolsand districts must have thecapabilities and the incentives todevelop and enact professionaldevelopment opportunities of suchqualities and characteristics, inother words to change the practiceof professional development in morepromising directions. And they mustbe held accountable for doing so.

A perennial question in educatorprofessional development is: If thecharacteristics and qualities ofeffective professional developmenthave been known for so long, whyhas there been so little change in theprevailing inadequate andineffective practice of professionaldevelopment? The short answer isthat states and school districts havenever made sufficient investments

35 Ibid. 36 Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning; National Staff Development Council.

Standards for Staff Development (Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council, 2001).37 Ruth C. Wei, Linda Darling-Hammond, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios

Orphanos, Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on TeacherDevelopment in the U.S. and Abroad.


policyBRIEF


in, developed the capabilities for, orbeen motivated or held accountablefor making such change on asystematic basis.

At least since the 1980s and certainlyin the past 15 years, improving thequality and effectiveness of educatorlearning and development has notachieved the level of attention andimperative in education policy asspecification, accountability, andcontrol as drivers of improvement.Indeed, without a concurrentemphasis on capacity development,these drivers have failed to deliverwith any consistency on theirpromises.38

There is no reason why this lack ofemphasis on development needs tocontinue. If opportunities forteacher learning and developmentare a crucial part of a system ofinstructional and schoolimprovement, states can createdifferent ways to enhance thecapacity, provide the incentives, andintroduce the accountabilitymechanisms to make high qualityprofessional development in schoolsand school districts both a higherpriority and a reality.39

Inadequate financial resources willcertainly be an issue in manyschools and school districts.Additional funding from states andschool districts may be warranted.High quality professionaldevelopment is not without costs.

And even though in total asubstantial amount of money issubstantial, the proportions ofbudgets and the per capita amountsof money spent on teacherprofessional development is low incomparison to what is spent inbusiness and industry to developpersonnel.40 It should be noted thatschools and school districts alreadyspend substantial amounts ofmoney on professional developmentactivities that, as discussed earlier inthis brief, are not very useful. Inaddition to new funding, states canencourage schools and schooldistricts to stop spending money onprofessional development activitiesthat are unlikely to bear fruit and toreallocate funds toward moreefficacious activities. This may bedifficult, not only because it requiresa shift in mindset about theprovision of professionaldevelopment but because it maychallenge strong, entrenchedpolitical and economics intereststhat have developed around itsprovision.41

Beyond allocating financialresources, one of the mostefficacious things that states can dois to increase the capacity and themotivation of district and school-level leadership to provide highquality professional development toteachers. There should be aninvestment in the development ofadministrative leadership toorganize and lead effective

Beyond allocating

financial resources,

one of the most

efficacious things

that states can do is

to increase the

capacity and the

motivation of

district and school-

level leadership to

provide high quality

professional

development to

teachers.

38 Joseph Murphy, Philip Hallinger, and Ronald H. Heck. “Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Caseof the Missing Clothes.”

39 Linda Darling-Hammond, Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters forEffectiveness and Improvement.

40 E.g., Beatrice F. Birman, Laura Desimone, Andrew C. Porter, and Michael S. Garet, “DesigningProfessional Development that Works.” Educational Leadership, 57, no. 8 (2000): 28-33; Mark A.Smylie, Elaine Allensworth, Rebeca C. Greenberg, Rodney Harris, and Stuart Luppescu, TeacherProfessional Development in Chicago: Supporting Effective Practice.

41 Brian Rowan, “The Ecology of School Improvement: Notes on the School Improvement Industryin the United States.” Journal of Educational Change, 3 (2002): 283-314.


policyBRIEF

14

Without more

attention to

professional

development as a

key complement to

evaluation, recently

developed teacher

evaluation systems

will likely fail to

improve teachers’

practices in the

ways theorized by

their proponents.

professional development. Thisinvestment can come from anumber of sources, including moreemphasis on professionaldevelopment in the preservicepreparation of administrators andthe certification and licensureprocesses for administrators.Moreover, administrator preparationprograms could be held accountablefor making a focus on teacherprofessional development acondition of accreditation. Therecould be several more developmentprograms for administrators thatfocus on the professionaldevelopment of teachers, includingissues such as the creation oforganizational conditions in schoolsconducive to effective professionaldevelopment.

There are potential levers thatpolicymakers can use outside ofreforms focusing on administrators.For example, policies could bedesigned to improve teacherleadership for designing and leadingprofessional development,coaching, and mentoring. Moreattention could be devoted topreparing and managing theevaluators and supervisors whodevelop and administer the learningopportunities for teachers that arespecified under evaluation plans.Policymakers could encourage thedevelopment of job-embeddedlearning opportunities in schoolsand districts, thereby makingprofessional learning part of work.Furthermore, policymakers couldencourage the development ofprofessional learning communitiesamong teachers and structurepolicies to encourage schools tofunction as organizations focusedcontinuous improvement. Statutoryprovisions could be crafted thatrequire professional development

for teachers to be a key element ofthe evaluation of administrators anteacher leaders, as well as evaluatorsand supervisors for teacherevaluation. In short, professionaldevelopment should be structuredas a critical complement toevaluation, not simply anafterthought.

CONCLUSIONAlthough most states are currentlydeveloping or implementing teacherevaluation systems, such systemssuffer from a number of problems.The lack of attention to professionaldevelopment in relation to thesesystems is one of the most seriousproblems. Policies governing teacherevaluation systems tend to makeonly vague and weak provisions forprofessional development, and theyfail to ensure that theseopportunities are of high quality andof value in improving practice. Ifstates are to improve theeffectiveness of their teacherevaluation systems, they shouldmake the provision of high qualityprofessional development to allteachers a key element of thesesystems. Without more attention toprofessional development as a keycomplement to evaluation, recentlydeveloped teacher evaluationsystems will likely fail to improveteachers’ practices in the waystheorized by their proponents.


policyBRIEF


ABOUT USThe Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based inthe University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the mostsignificant problems facing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently failsto reflect what we know and what we do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying.Instead of being polemic and grounded primarily in ideology, public conversations about education shouldbe constructive and informed by the best available evidence.

OUR MISSIONRUEPI’s work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy inChicago and other urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issuesfacing these areas, including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacherworkforce policy. We offer timely analysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best availableevidence.

OUR APPROACHGiven RUEPI’s mission, the project’s work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are notgrounded in any particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay afoundation for ensuring that debates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of howeducation policies have fared in the past. The principles are as follows:

• Education policies should be coherent and strategic

• Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms

• Education policies should account for local context

RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of Education and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

Learn more at http://ruepi.uic.edu

CONTACT US

[email protected]://ruepi.uic.edu

facebook.com/ruepi

FOLLOW US

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

1040 West Harrison StreetChicago, Illinois 60607