The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: New teacher evaluation systems have expanded the role of principals as instructional leaders, but little is known about principals’ ability to promote teacher development through the evaluation process. We conducted a case study of principals’ perspectives on evaluation and their experiences implementing observation and feedback cycles to better understand whether principals feel as though they are able to promote teacher development as evaluators. Research Method: We conducted interviews with a stratified random sample of 24 principals in an urban district that recently implemented major reforms to its teacher evaluation system. We analyzed these interviews by drafting thematic summaries, coding interview transcripts, creating data-analytic matrices, and writing analytic memos. Findings: We found that the evaluation reforms provided a common framework and language that helped facilitate principals’ feedback conversations with teachers. However, we also found that tasking principals with primary responsibility for conducting evaluations resulted in a variety of unintended consequences which undercut the quality of evaluation feedback they provided. We analyze five broad solutions to these challenges: strategically targeting evaluations, reducing operational responsibilities, providing principal training, hiring instructional coaches, and developing peer evaluation systems. Implications: The quality of feedback teachers receive through the evaluation process depends critically on the time and training evaluators have to provide individualized and actionable feedback. Districts that task principals with primary responsibility for conducting observation and feedback cycles must attend to the many implementation challenges associated with this approach in order for next-generation evaluation systems to successfully promote teacher development.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
66 Own result · 39 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 7 Own method · 5 No basis given · 3 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The language used on the rubric was easy for principals and teachers to understand.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all principals cited meaningful ways in which the current system was an improvement over the former system.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For most principals, the common framework about what professional practices the district prioritized and what exemplary practice looked like provided helpful structure for their feedback conversations.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 70% of our sample reported that the new evaluation rubric was an important, and positive, improvement to the new evaluation system.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all but eight principals cited the increased involvement of teachers in the evaluation process as an important change.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expectations for conducting post-observation meetings with teachers also created opportunities for teachers to engage in a productive dialogue about their performance.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen principals felt that transitioning from a system of infrequent evaluations with a focus on low-performing teachers to a system where all teachers were evaluated regularly on a detailed rubric had begun to shift the “gotcha” culture around evaluation.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transition from binary ratings to a rubric with four performance levels also helped principals to provide more specific feedback as part of the evaluation process.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lack of content expertise led many secondary principals to narrow the focus of their evaluation to general instructional practices and strategies.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation approaches differed substantially even among the majority of principals who viewed improving teachers’ instructional practices as their primary goal of the evaluation process.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A growing body of research suggests that instructional and content coaches can improve teachers’ practice through sustained observation and feedback cycles (e.g. Allen et al., 2011; Authors, in press).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Allen et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract describes a year of coaching in which consultants repeatedly review classroom videos and give teachers feedback, and reports improvements in teacher-student interactions. It calls the approach content-independent, however, so Allen et al. support the point about instructional coaching but not the claim about content coaching. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Authors, in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Although narrowing the scope of feedback may have improved principal’s confidence, it failed to address teachers’ need to develop both their core content knowledge and their pedagogical content knowledge, which have been shown to be central elements of effective instruction particularly in math (Wayne & Youngs, 2003; Hill et al., 2008).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wayne & Youngs, 2003 source
- Supportedcites Hill et al., 2008 source
The citation supports the sentence’s claim about teacher knowledge, not its separate account of principals’ feedback. In the Background section (page unavailable), the paper defines mathematical knowledge for teaching as including both content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Its Conclusion says strong common content knowledge and additional knowledge specific to teaching support rich mathematics instruction. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, new evidence documents the potential of pairing highly effect teachers to work with their less effective colleagues on specific areas of instructional improvement (Papay, Taylor, Tyler & Laski, 2016).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Papay, Taylor, Tyler & Laski, 2016 source
Section 1.1 (Treatment) describes pairing lower-performing teachers with higher-performing colleagues whose strengths matched specific instructional weaknesses. The Abstract reports improved student test-score growth, with gains concentrated among the target teachers, supporting the claim that this approach has potential. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These principals felt that ratings based on observable teacher practices catalogued on the rubric elements helped teachers understand why they received certain feedback, making the evaluation process seem less subjective.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principals perceived this change as beginning to increase teachers’ willingness to engage with them in the observation and feedback process.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' reports about teachers' attitudes and reactions accurately represent teachers' actual attitudes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, five principals characterized the current evaluation process as “still very formal” and teachers as being “a little bit edgy” and “still very paranoid” even though these principals all described their evaluation efforts as focused on professional growth.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the time, principals had not received any training on how to manage their time to complete all observations or how to engage in productive feedback conversations.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to assigning accurate ratings, there was a critical “human component,” as one principal described it, that they had to learn on their own.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A high school principal with previous experience as a non-profit manager explained how principals were now expected to know how to teach adults as well as children.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, four of the administrators we spoke with explained that they used the evaluation system to support the vast majority of teachers to improve their practice, but also highlighted the importance of dismissing teachers who were ineffective educators.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several principals saw the need for coaches who were content experts to supplement the general instructional feedback they could provide.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two different principals suggested they could not work with more than a dozen teachers at a time and be expected to make any real difference in teachers’ practices.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One veteran principal we spoke with found that the demands of the new evaluation system meant that he “could not spend a lot of time coaching.” He described how instead, he hired full-time instructional coaches to work closely with his teachers.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these principals suggested that many more of their peers would “shy away from difficult conversations.””
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that principals’ views on what the evaluation system should be used for did not always align with how the district articulated the purpose of the system or how principals felt teachers perceived the system.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For principals who transitioned into administration directly from the classroom, the only option was “learning when you get into the job,” as one principal explained.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While some principals saw these situations as opportunities to talk about how teachers could further enhance their practice, not all principals were prepared to navigate these conversations.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These administrators lack of an “instructional lens” meant they gave “very different evaluation responses” than other member of her team.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of these principals emphasized the value of providing teachers with opportunities to observe and learn from their peers.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They described how teacher buy-in and investment in the improvement process were essential to its success.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twelve principals we spoke with suggested that peer observation and feedback systems held more promise for promoting professional growth than relying on principals to provide evaluation feedback.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principals’ perceived that teachers were becoming more involved in the evaluation process and that the culture around evaluation was beginning to shift towards a focus on professional growth.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As intended by the district, teachers were becoming more involved and the culture around evaluation was beginning to focus on professional growth.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The district's messaging accurately reflects the district's actual intent for the evaluation system.
In the paper
“We used a semi-structured protocol (see Appendix A) to ensure that each interview touched upon a common set of topics and reduced interviewer effects and bias (Patton, 2001).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Research Methods > Data Collection and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Patton, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each author then conducted a trial coding process with two transcripts, reviewed the other’s initial coding, and debriefed about coding discrepancies and common themes that were not included in our initial set of codes. This peer-review process served to calibrate our coding approach and revealed how some of our original codes were too narrowly focused.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Research Methods > Data Collection and Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find no statistically significant differences across any measures, strong evidence that our sample is broadly representative of the district as a whole.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Research Methods > Sample
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the evidence on each theme was organized into an extended analytic memo, we returned to the interview transcripts to search for disconfirming evidence and counterexamples.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Research Methods > Data Collection and Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teachers were recognized for their expertise and actively engaged in the evaluation process, which may have led them to take more ownership of the evaluation process and promote professional growth.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Evaluation Reforms Provided an Improved System for Promoting Teacher Development
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process of evaluating teachers in a way that supported their professional growth required principals to rate teachers accurately and have direct conversations about what and how a teacher needed to improve.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Accurate evaluation ratings are critical for any evaluation system and are a necessary precursor for productive conversations with teachers about professional improvement.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Evaluations of SAM programs found that principals gained nearly an hour a day to focus on instruction (Turnball et al., 2009), but small to no effects on student achievement (Turnball, White, and Arcaira, 2010).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Turnball et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Turnball, White, and Arcaira, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only high-quality training on how to conduct observation and feedback cycles would address principals’ limited expertise.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teachers may perceive evaluations as a process for collecting evidence to justify dismissals and be unwilling to openly recognize their weakness and engage in the improvement process.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These choices affected the evaluation experience of teachers in their schools, and may even impact the degree to which the culture around teacher evaluation changes in the district as a whole.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moving towards more task specialization among administrators is promising given the increasing demands on principals to be expert instructional leaders and the core importance of operations management.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A system where coaches work across schools would allow districts to better match teachers to experts in their particular area in need of improvement.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Requiring all teachers to participate equally in a rigorous evaluation process sends a strong signal that the process is not exclusively focused on dismissal.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Content experts would also be well prepared to rate and provide teachers feedback based on content-specific observation rubrics such as the MQI or the PLATO (Kane et al., 2014).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kane et al., 2014
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Providing better training to principals is an intuitive solution, but little is known about the content and efficacy of such training programs (Peterson, 2002).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peterson, 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principals’ own perspectives on evaluation directly shaped how they chose to implement the evaluation system, and ultimately, how teachers experienced the evaluation process.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Decades of research by Anthony Bryk and his colleagues (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010) have demonstrated the key role of relational trust between administrators and teachers engaged in improvement processes.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryk & Schneider, 2002
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principals were required to accurately differentiate teachers on a four point scale, support their ratings with low-inference evidence, communicate these ratings effectively, and prescribe specific, actionable feedback for teachers on how to improve.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Implementation Challenges and the Unintended Consequences of Relying on Principals as Evaluators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PAR can increase teachers’ impact on students achievement (Taylor & Tyler, 2012) and can be cost effective (Papay & Johnson, 2012), but requires effective labor-management cooperation as Hillsborough County Public School’s decision to scrap its established peer evaluation system illustrates (Sokol, 2015).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaking of teacher evaluation systems across U.S. public schools has the potential to promote teacher improvement on a large scale.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings also highlight the increasing need to develop principals’ skills as evaluators and instructional leaders as part of their graduate training and certification programs.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, principals were responsible for assigning overall evaluation ratings whereas in most states summative ratings are calculated from a weighted sum of multiple performance measures.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An effective training and support program for evaluators could help them to better manage their time and maximize the impact of their evaluation feedback.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Delivering on this promise will depend, in large part, on how these reforms are implemented on the ground by administrators and educators.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The literature on distributed leadership provides examples of how principal could empower their staff to assume responsibilities for instructional leadership and development (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2007; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001).”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Findings > Assessing Proposals for Improving Observation and Feedback Cycles
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principals’ perspectives will vary depending on the design of the evaluation systems adopted in their districts and the specific stage of implementation.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Principals' interview responses accurately reflect their actual views and experiences.
“These interviews gave principals the opportunity to share their perspectives about teacher evaluation as well as their experiences implementing the districts’ former and current evaluation systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The first year of district-wide implementation is a sufficient period for principals to report stable views and experiences of the new evaluation system.
“the summer after the first year the new evaluation system was implemented district-wide.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Principals' reports about teachers' attitudes and reactions accurately represent teachers' actual attitudes.
“Principals perceived this change as beginning to increase teachers’ willingness to engage with them in the observation and feedback process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The district's messaging accurately reflects the district's actual intent for the evaluation system.
“This common viewpoint was aligned with the district’s messaging of the primary purpose of the new evaluation system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The interviewed principals' self-reports accurately represent their views and experiences.
“Our interviews also suggested that some principals may have avoided difficult conversations with teachers about their weaknesses and, instead, focused on reinforcing the things that were going well in the classroom.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Accurate evaluation ratings are critical for any evaluation system and are a necessary precursor for productive conversations with teachers about professional improvement.
“Accurate evaluation ratings are critical for any evaluation system, but are also a necessary precursor for engaging in a productive conversation with teachers about professional improvement.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“At nine of the smallest schools in our sample, principals were the only evaluators. Principals at nine other medium-sized schools had one or two other administrators who also conducted evaluations, while the five largest middle and high schools had 3 to 9 additional evaluators.”
§ Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences > Research Methods > Sample
Reported 24 · recomputed 23
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420 · cited 1×
“We coded interview transcripts for central concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) using a hybrid approach to developing codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).”
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,637
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
(1996) · Cited by 11,584
What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 · Cited by 5,047
Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x · Cited by 4,501
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x08321509 · Cited by 2,549
The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data
Rockoff, J. E. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828041302244 · Cited by 2,432 · cited 2×
“These reforms were motivated in large part by research documenting that teachers have large effects on student learning (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004), and that existing evaluation systems were perfunctory and narrowly focused on compliance (Tucker, 1997; Weisberg et al.”
Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach
Pitman, M. A. (1998) · Anthropology & Education Quarterly · doi:10.1525/aeq.1998.29.4.499 · Cited by 2,404
(2002) · Cited by 2,212
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Donaldson M. L., 2010, Supporting effective teaching through teacher evaluation: A study of teacher evaluation in five charter schools
- Kane T. J., 2012, Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains
- Kraft M. A., Educational Policy
- Lacireno-Paquet N., 2014, How states use student learning objectives in teacher evaluation systems: A review of statewide websites
- Sartain L., 2011, Rethinking teacher evaluation: Lessons learned from observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation
- Steinberg M. P., Education Finance and Policy
- Thomas E., 2010, Newsweek, 155, 24
- Turnball B. J., 2010, Achievement trends in schools with school administration managers (SAMs)
- Waters T., 2003, Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654318759268 · Cited by 1,202
Self-citationLiebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654319866133 · Cited by 384
“…and assistant principals, to which we refer hereafter collectively as “principals”) are responsible for a dizzying set of responsibilities (e.g., Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Spillane & Hunt, 2010; Spillane & Lee, 2014), which range from ensuring that hallways are clear of disruption, family…”
BackgroundKraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x17718797 · Cited by 211
“There are no formal incentives in place for receiving an exemplary rating, similar to systems in many other states and districts (Steinberg & Donaldson, 2016; see Kraft & Gilmour, 2016, for a more detailed description of the evaluation system).”
BackgroundSelf-citationOECD (2019) · OECD reviews of school resources · doi:10.1787/b7aaf050-en · Cited by 183
Demszky, D., Liu, J., Hill, H. C., Jurafsky, D., & Piech, C. (2023) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737231169270 · Cited by 147
“First, generating formative feedback tends to be resource-intensive (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. L. (2018) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373718784205 · Cited by 106
“For example, Kraft and Gilmour (2016) found that some principals took a more directive approach in providing explicit, “actionable” feedback to teachers while others prioritized teachers’ self-reflection by asking open-ended questions.”
BackgroundInfluentialNeumerski, C. M., Grissom, J. A., Goldring, E. B., Drake, T. A., Rubin, M., Cannata, M. A., & Schuermann, P. J. (2018) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/700597 · Cited by 94
“…rubrics based on evidence about effective instructional practice aims to address these concerns, although evaluation systems in many states still fail to adequately differentiate between high- and low-performing teachers (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Weisberg et al., 2009).”
BackgroundTeacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers
Kraft, M. A., Brunner, E. J., Dougherty, S. M., & Schwegman, D. (2020) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104212 · Cited by 87
Self-citationUsing Teacher Effectiveness Data for Information-Rich Hiring
Cannata, M. A., Rubin, M., Goldring, E. B., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C. M., Drake, T. A., & Schuermann, P. J. (2016) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x16681629 · Cited by 68
“The data available in new teacher evaluation systems, and the common language provided by the evaluations themselves, have the potential to improve teacher performance (Donaldson & Papay, 2014; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundSupporting Special Education Teacher Induction Through High-Leverage Practices
Billingsley, B. S., Bettini, E. A., & Jones, N. D. (2019) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932518816826 · Cited by 61
“It is likely that these reforms are beginning to change the nature of interactions between teachers and principals (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016); in particular, administrators are increasingly relying on scores drawn from observations to guide teachers’ improvement efforts and to make human capital…”
BackgroundThe Significance of Principal Management on Teacher Performance and Quality of Learning
Rostini, D., Syam, R. Z. A., & Achmad, W. (2022) · AL-ISHLAH Jurnal Pendidikan · doi:10.35445/alishlah.v14i2.1721 · Cited by 54
Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373717690605 · Cited by 54
“…substantially affected by sensemaking, including administrators’ beliefs about the purpose of evaluation and its potential to improve instruction (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Reinhorn & Johnson, 2014), the capacity and commitment of evaluators to provide accurate assessments and useful feedback…”
BackgroundInfluentialExploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction
Ford, T. G., Urick, A., & Wilson, A. (2018) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.26.3559 · Cited by 74
“…based on the standards of good teaching supports instructional improvement by establishing the clear expectations necessary to motivate change (Kelly, Ang, Chong, & Hu, 2008) and by providing a common language for evaluators and teachers to discuss instructional feedback (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialClassroom observation systems in context: A case for the validation of observation systems
Liu, S., Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2019) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-018-09291-3 · Cited by 46
Trapped between accountability and professional learning? School leaders and teacher evaluation
Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2019) · Professional Development in Education · doi:10.1080/19415257.2019.1585384 · Cited by 48
“Are, for instance, policy assumptions tested, can they (realistically) be implemented and are prerequisites, such as professional competence and a well-functioning educational infrastructure in place for implementation to succeed? Kraft and Gilmour (2016) specifically mention unintended consequences of relying on prin…”
BackgroundInfluentialTeacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests
Firestone, W. A., & Donaldson, M. L. (2019) · Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z · Cited by 57
Kraft, M. A., & Christian, A. (2021) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312211024603 · Cited by 53
Self-citationÖzdemir, N. (2020) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/jea-10-2019-0189 · Cited by 55
Buonomo, I., Fiorilli, C., Romano, L., & Benevene, P. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17238745 · Cited by 50
Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback: A review of the literature
Ridge, B. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.28.5023 · Cited by 64
“Perhaps this is because even under the best conditions when principals were prepared and had the skills to do teacher evaluation well, they lacked time (Donaldson & Woulfin, 2018; Goldring et al., 2015; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Lavigne & Chamberlain, 2017; Stecher et al., 2018)2.”
BackgroundPaufler, N. A. (2018) · International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2018v13n8a813 · Cited by 41
Maktoum, S. B. A., & Alkaabi, A. M. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2287931 · Cited by 65
“Principals who primarily viewed the evaluation process as an accountability tool tend to invest minimal time in providing constructive feedback (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
InfluentialSchool administrators’ direct and indirect influences on middle school math teachers’ turnover
Redding, C., Booker, L. N., Smith, T. M., & Desimone, L. M. (2019) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/jea-10-2018-0190 · Cited by 35
The Coverage of Classroom Management in Teacher Evaluation Rubrics
Gilmour, A. F., Majeika, C. E., Sheaffer, A. W., & Wehby, J. H. (2018) · Teacher Education and Special Education The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/0888406418781918 · Cited by 33
“Other researchers (Hill & Grossman, 2013; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016) point out that the challenges of implementing evaluation could be partially due to vague language.”
BackgroundSelf-citationHarding, J. F., Connors, M. C., Friedman‐Krauss, A. H., Aikens, N. L., Malone, L. M., & Tarullo, L. B. (2019) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.12327 · Cited by 39
Drake, T. A. (2020) · Journal of Research on Leadership Education · doi:10.1177/1942775120941549 · Cited by 31
“…the relatively low frequency with which the interns engaged in teacher coaching seems to suggest that interns were not viewed by their principals and/or teachers as credible coaches, a leadership activity that requires training, trust, and respect (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundBellibaş, M. Ş. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-02-2022-0086 · Cited by 32
What matters to teachers if evaluation is meant to help them improve?
Liu, Y., Visone, J. D., Mongillo, M. B., & Lisi, P. L. (2019) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.01.006 · Cited by 32
Talk of Calling: Novice School Principals Narrating Destiny, Duty, and Fulfillment in Work
Swen, C. P. (2019) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x19840387 · Cited by 39
“Principals’ role as 182 Educational Administration Quarterly 56(2) instructional leader has been expanded, requiring observation of and feedback to teachers (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundCohen, J., Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. (2019) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373719893338 · Cited by 31
“The promise of teacher evaluation systems has led to their wide adoption, but the implementation and impact of these policies has been uneven (Burch & Spillane, 2005; Coburn, 2016; Donaldson & Woulfin, 2018; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Marsh et al., 2017).”
BackgroundResultFuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Pendola, A. (2017) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x17711481 · Cited by 44
“Kraft and Gilmour (2016) note that instructional leadership is defined in numerous ways, but is generally considered to include, “staff development, curriculum development and coherence, student assessment and analysis, and evaluation and individualized feedback” (p. 716).”
BackgroundChoi, S. (2023) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x231189196 · Cited by 29
OECD Reviews of School Resources
(2015) · OECD reviews of school resources · doi:10.1787/24133841 · Cited by 28
Maintaining the Frame: Using Frame Analysis to Explain Teacher Evaluation Policy Implementation
Lane, J. L. (2019) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831219848689 · Cited by 27
“These studies also highlight the primacy of the developmental focus, although maintaining this focus is likely to require some compromise of evaluation reforms’ accountability demands (Donaldson & Mavrogordato, 2018; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Mintrop et al., 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialHunter, S. B., & Springer, M. G. (2022) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737211062913 · Cited by 40
“…the burdens of higher observational loads on evaluators, it seems that evaluators may cope with higher loads by reducing time spent in preand post-conferences, potentially undermining the developmental goals of increasing observations (Hunter & Rodriguez, 2021; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Rigby, 2015).”
BackgroundMassouti, A., Shaya, N., & Qareiny, S. M. A. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100372 · Cited by 28
Teacher Evaluation Feedback and Instructional Practice Self-Efficacy in Secondary School Teachers
Smith, E. C., Starratt, G. K., McCrink, C. L., & Whitford, H. (2020) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x19888568 · Cited by 21
Teacher evaluation policy as perceived by school principals: the case of Flanders (Belgium)
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017) · Teachers and Teaching · doi:10.1080/13540602.2017.1397508 · Cited by 25
“Kraft and Gilmour (2016) state that we still have insufficient knowledge about how school principals deal with new teacher evaluation policies.”
BackgroundPrincipals and teacher evaluation
Donaldson, M. L., & Mavrogordato, M. (2018) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/jea-08-2017-0100 · Cited by 24
Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital
Donaldson, M. L., & Firestone, W. A. (2021) · Journal of Educational Change · doi:10.1007/s10833-020-09405-z · Cited by 30
Enacting the Rubric: Teacher Improvements in Windows of High-Stakes Observation
Phipps, A., & Wiseman, E. A. (2019) · Education Finance and Policy · doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00295 · Cited by 22
Ámbitos de aplicación del Coaching educativo: una revisión bibliográfica del periodo 2013-17
Loredo, E. R., Sierra-Arizmendiarrieta, B., & Montero, C. R. (2019) · Educatio Siglo XXI · doi:10.6018/educatio.387091 · Cited by 21
Paufler, N. A., King, K. M., & Ping, Z. (2020) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100873 · Cited by 25
Edwards, D. B., DeMatthews, D. E., Spear, A. M., & Hartley, H. (2020) · Compare A Journal of Comparative and International Education · doi:10.1080/03057925.2020.1717927 · Cited by 31
Charalambous, C. Y., Kyriakides, E., Kyriakidēs, L., et al. (2019) · School Effectiveness and School Improvement · doi:10.1080/09243453.2019.1618877 · Cited by 19
“…then the study findings question the approach of having secondary school principals who are experts in particular subject matters conduct observations across subject areas (cf. Kraft & Gilmour, 2016) – let alone to provide these teachers with feedback that will help them improve their practice.”
ResultTeacher evaluation as a wicked policy problem
Lillejord, S., Elstad, E., & Kavli, H. (2018) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2018.1429388 · Cited by 22
“In theory, therefore, the purpose of teacher evaluation is twofold: to serve as a professional development process and as a quality assurance mechanism (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialShaping Professional Development of Educators: The Role of School Leaders
MacLeod, L. M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7_10 · Cited by 27
Principals’ instructional leadership under statewide teacher evaluation reform
Lochmiller, C. R., & Mancinelli, J. L. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-06-2017-0151 · Cited by 19
Lowenhaupt, R. J., & McNeill, K. L. (2018) · Leadership and Policy in Schools · doi:10.1080/15700763.2018.1453937 · Cited by 16
“Principals are now asked to conduct frequent formal and informal classroom visits to view typical teaching in action and gather evidence to provide ongoing feedback for teachers to improve their instruction (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Marshall, 2009).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPRINCIPALS’ ROLE IN MANAGING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Ngema, M., & Lekhetho, M. (2019) · Problems of Education in the 21st Century · doi:10.33225/pec/19.77.758 · Cited by 17
“Principals play a central role in the professional growth of teachers, and this, in turn, influence student outcomes positively (Brown & Militello, 2016; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundHunter, S. B. (2020) · AERA Open · doi:10.1177/2332858420929276 · Cited by 18
Principal Engagement in the Professional Development Process
Koonce, M. J., Pijanowski, J. C., Bengtson, E., & Lasater, K. (2019) · NASSP Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0192636519871614 · Cited by 15
“The farther the development needs of the school are from the personal experience of the principal, the less confident principals feel (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundThe Rhetoric of Teacher Evaluation: New York City Teachers’ Responses to Performance Labels
Pallas, A. M. (2021) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048211049432 · Cited by 15
“Designs of this sort are not automatic; teacher evaluation is often described as a “wicked problem” (Lillejord et al., 2018), precisely because of its competing purposes of professional development and quality assurance (Herlihy et al., 2014; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundPaufler, N. A., & Clark, C. (2019) · Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-019-09292-w · Cited by 15
“For example, principals reportedly struggle to provide the type of feedback required in a new evaluation system (Kraft and Gilmour 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStrategies for Assessing Classroom Teaching: Examining Administrator Thinking as Validity Evidence
Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., Qi, Y., et al. (2018) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1080/10627197.2018.1513788 · Cited by 15
“For example, Kraft and Gilmour (2016) found that administrators assigned higher ratings than the administrator felt were deserved to deal with complex leadership issues such as giving beginning teachers a little more time to develop before assigning a low rating or using slightly higher ratings to…”
BackgroundCarroll, K. M., Patrick, S. K., & Goldring, E. B. (2021) · American Journal of Education · doi:10.1086/715002 · Cited by 15
Lavigne, A. L. (2018) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143218807491 · Cited by 14
“%) principals feel they understood how to apply new teacher evaluation models (Kowalski and Dolph, 2015) and that these new models offer common language that enhance their ability to provide effective feedback to teachers (Kraft and Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundSchool Leader Perceptions: Coaching Tool and Process
Damore, S. J., & Rieckhoff, B. S. (2019) · Journal of Research on Leadership Education · doi:10.1177/1942775119868258 · Cited by 14
“They face the same challenges as the principal when assuming the role of supervisor and evaluator (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Williamson, 2012).”
BackgroundSchool principals acting as middle leaders implementing new teacher evaluation systems
Reid, D. (2018) · School Leadership and Management · doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1508013 · Cited by 21
“For example, teachers hope new evaluation systems will be used to support their © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group CONTACT David B. Reid david.reid@shu.edu practice and help them develop as professionals (Kraft and Gilmour 2016).”
BackgroundKelly, S., Guner, G., Hunkins, N., & D’Mello, S. K. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00417-x · Cited by 15
“…Humphry & Heldsinger, 2014; Liu et al., 2019; McCaffrey et al., 2015); dramatic differences in reliability depending on rater training (Kelly et al., 2020a, b); a tendency for the vast majority of ratings to cluster in the middle of the rating scale (Kelly et al., 2020a, b; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
Trust Within Teaching Staff and Mutual Learning Among Teachers
Brücknerová, K., & Novotný, P. (2017) · Studia paedagogica · doi:10.5817/sp2017-2-5 · Cited by 10
“Kraft and Gilmour (2016) showed that when there were a large number of teachers in a school, it was very difficult to implement instructional leadership at the required depth for all teachers.”
BackgroundHunter, S. B., & Rodríguez, L. A. (2021) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/jea-07-2020-0165 · Cited by 17
Kellermann, C., Nachbauer, M., Gaertner, H., & Thiel, F. (2022) · School Effectiveness and School Improvement · doi:10.1080/09243453.2022.2075018 · Cited by 21
“The lack of feedback effects in some studies may be due to the low quality of feedback, which has been criticised by both school leaders and teachers (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Milanowski & Heneman, 2001; Wieczorek et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialMeaning of work in a group of school principals: the role of organizational variables
Buonomo, I., Benevene, P., & Fiorilli, C. (2020) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/jwl-12-2019-0146 · Cited by 15
Administrators' Uses of Teacher Observation Protocol in Different Rating Contexts
Qi, Y., Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., et al. (2018) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12205 · Cited by 12
“Research on the quality of practice-based observation systems has been slower to develop, although recent work is beginning to supply needed insight (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Steinberg & Sartain, 2015; Whitehurst, Chingos, & Lindquist, 2014).1 Although the consequences associated with using…”
BackgroundWhat information do principals consider when evaluating teachers?
Reid, D. (2019) · School Leadership and Management · doi:10.1080/13632434.2019.1576167 · Cited by 12
“This phenomenon is not unique to this study, as principals have intimate relationships with the teachers they are charged with evaluating, it is difficult for principals to evaluate teachers completely objectively (Papay and Johnson 2012; Kraft and Gilmour 2016).”
BackgroundPrincipals' Perspectives of a Race to the Top-Style Teacher Evaluation System
Wieczorek, D., Clark, B. L., & Theoharis, G. (2018) · Journal of School Leadership · doi:10.1177/105268461802800501 · Cited by 12
“There is a smaller body of emerging research that has investigated principals’ interpretation and implementation of RTTT instructional supervision and evaluation practices (Goldring et al., 2015; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Derrington & Campbell, 2018).”
BackgroundMethodHow might rubric-based observations better support teacher learning and development?
White, M., & Maher, B. L. (2024) · Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00131881.2024.2304542 · Cited by 13
“…positive relationships with teachers, promoting commitment to the observations, increasing teachers’ receptivity to feedback and/or supporting a positive working climate (Bell et al. 2015; Donaldson and Woulfin 2018; Halverson, Kelley, and Kimball 2004; Kraft and Gilmour 2016; Shaked 2018).”
BackgroundPrincipals may inflate teacher evaluation scores to achieve important goals
Jones, E. A., Bergin, C. C., & Murphy, B. C. (2021) · Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-021-09366-8 · Cited by 13
High-leverage teacher evaluation practices for instructional improvement
Hunter, S. B. (2022) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/17411432221112995 · Cited by 15
“That accurate scoring (a) and longer conferences (f) represent high-leverage evaluation practices is consistent with prior work (Jawahar, 2010; Kraft and Gilmour, 2016); however, empirical research linking practices (b) – (e) to teacher and student outcomes is less common (Donaldson, 2021).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTeaching Quality: An Unexamined Element of Special Education Teacher Turnover
Gilmour, A. F. (2024) · Journal of Education Human Resources · doi:10.3138/jehr-2022-0018 · Cited by 11
Self-citationA Thirty State Analysis of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Systems in the ESSA Era
Mette, I. M., Aguilar, I., & Wieczorek, D. (2020) · Journal of Educational Supervision · doi:10.31045/jes.3.2.7 · Cited by 11
“…other hand, how individual school leaders have been interpreting evaluation policies and implementing them using their own discretion is also another facet of TSES development that is important to understand as part of what is also happening at the local level (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Reid, 2017).”
BackgroundSartain, L., & Morris, W. T. (2024) · AERA Open · doi:10.1177/23328584231221539 · Cited by 10
“…are very time-consuming for evaluators (typically school administrators) to implement because of the high numbers of required observations and the associated emphasis on data collection and documentation (Goldring et al., 2015; Hill & Grossman, 2013; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Sartain et al., 2011).”
Tatik, T., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Loughland, T. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2025.105013 · Cited by 12
Gilmour, A. F., & Jones, N. D. (2020) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x20935039 · Cited by 10
Self-citationReid, D. (2017) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143217739362 · Cited by 10
Gholaminejad, R. (2020) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2020.1740795 · Cited by 13
“Historically, according to Kraft and Gilmour (2016), supervisory observation has rarely served either of the two-fold aims of professional development and quality assurance, as it was unable to ‘differentiate among teachers’, ‘inform personnel decisions’, or ‘provide meaningful feedback to…”
Background“Tearing Down the Wall”: Making Sense of Teacher Leaders as Instructional Coaches and Evaluators
Comstock, M., & Margolis, J. (2020) · Journal of School Leadership · doi:10.1177/1052684620969932 · Cited by 16
“…variation in implementation of evaluation systems across schools (Reinhorn et al., 2017) and highlight the importance of examining how principals (as primary evaluators) put evaluation policies in practice (see, for instance, Kimball & Milanowski, 2009; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Sartain et al., 2011).”
BackgroundClinical Supervision Model to Improve the Quality of Learning in Elementary School
Babo, R., & Syamsuddin, A. (2022) · Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar · doi:10.23887/jisd.v6i1.41303 · Cited by 10
“Regarding the implementation of supervision by the principal, it has no effect on the teaching skills of teachers because this activity is only a supplement to administration (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Palavan et al., 2016).”
BackgroundLiebowitz, D. D. (2021) · Labour Economics · doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102024 · Cited by 15
Principals’ Priorities, Teacher Evaluation, and Instructional Leadership
Donaldson, M. L., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P. A., et al. (2024) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x241273903 · Cited by 9
“Yet, like others, we found that few principals report implementing it in ways that might actually improve instruction (Hunter & Rodriguez, 2021; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
InfluentialFord, T. G., & Lavigne, A. L. (2023) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048221103796 · Cited by 17
“This is compounded by the fact that principals oftentimes observe and provide feedback to teachers in content areas outside of their area of expertise (Cherasaro et al., 2016) which results in principals providing feedback almost entirely focused on pedagogy (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialSkolledarskap i Sverige: en forskningsöversikt 2014–2018
Norqvist, L., & Isling, P. P. (2020) · Nordic Studies in Education · doi:10.23865/nse.v40.2230 · Cited by 9
Principal evaluation in the United States: A national review of state statutes and regulations
Nielsen, S. R., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.28.5097 · Cited by 9
“…2015), principal and teacher perceptions and practices (e.g., Derrington & Campbell, 2017; Flores & Derrington, 2017; Goldring et al., 2015; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Lavigne & Chamberlain, 2017; Lavigne & Olson, 2019), as well as unintended consequences (e.g., Ford et al., 2018; Lavigne,…”
BackgroundLavigne, A. L., & Olson, A. (2019) · Leadership and Policy in Schools · doi:10.1080/15700763.2019.1637899 · Cited by 7
Hunter, S. B., & Ege, A. (2021) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x211003134 · Cited by 9
“Relative to the expectations set forth by these new systems, researchers found that administrators conducted fewer observations of shorter duration and held brief postobservation conferences (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialInstructional Supervision in an Era of High‐Stakes Accountability
Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119128304.ch6 · Cited by 11
Teachers’ Views on the Conduct of Class Observation: The Philippine DepEd Setting
Torres, M. V., Zerrudo, A. P., Labad, V. S., & Gabales, B. (2024) · International Journal of Instruction · doi:10.29333/iji.2024.17325a · Cited by 8
Teachers’ perceptions of how principals use new teacher evaluation systems
Reid, D. (2020) · Teachers and Teaching · doi:10.1080/13540602.2020.1740199 · Cited by 13
Stosich, E. L., Hatch, T., Hill, K., et al. (2021) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.29.5990 · Cited by 8
“…learning related to teacher evaluation could help to facilitate social connections among administrators in different roles and could support administrators’ in developing a common language and approach for supporting teachers’ practice (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Liou, 2016).”
Critical Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Leadership
(2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7 · Cited by 11
Leadership for socially-just supervision in K-12 schools in the context of the United States
Çevik, S., YILDIRIM, S. G., & Zepeda, S. J. (2020) · Multicultural Education Review · doi:10.1080/2005615x.2020.1842671 · Cited by 7
Rafiq, S., Qaisar, S., & Butt, I. H. (2022) · Gomal University Journal of Research · doi:10.51380/gujr-38-02-08 · Cited by 7
Hunter, S. B., & Redding, C. (2022) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048221087201 · Cited by 6
“While ICs and TPOs informally observe teachers and provide them with feedback for improvement, TPOs also observe teachers formally for summative evaluation purposes, similar to the role typically played by school administrators (Hunter & Rodriguez, 2019; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).”
BackgroundFlamand, P., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., & Devos, G. (2024) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2024.104543 · Cited by 6
U.S. Principals' Interpretation and Implementation of Teacher Evaluation Policies
Reid, D. (2017) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2721 · Cited by 8
The role of ego threat in professional growth: Fulfilling the ethical intentions of the SEED Model
Gregory, J. L., & Mebane, K. A. (2018) · Educational Practice and Theory · doi:10.7459/ept/40.1.02 · Cited by 6
School Leadership in the United States: Evolving Responsibilities in Times of Change
Lowenhaupt, R. J. (2021) · Educational governance research · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74497-7_10 · Cited by 6
Mayger, L. K., & Provinzano, K. (2022) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.30.6983 · Cited by 5
“School principals, however, prefer to use teacher evaluation as a tool for professional development (Derrington & Campbell, 2018; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Neumerski et al., 2018; Paufler & Sloat, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialCan Video Technology Improve Teacher Evaluations? An Experimental Study
Kane, T. J., Blazar, D., Gehlbach, H., Greenberg, M., Quinn, D. M., & Thal, D. (2019) · Education Finance and Policy · doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00289 · Cited by 7
“…and practitioners have raised concerns about conflating coaching interventions, which are purposefully low-stakes and non-evaluative, with official teacher evaluation, which could carry consequences for the teachers’ employment, earnings, or daily work relationships (Kraft and Gilmour 2016).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kraft, Matthew A.
- Venue
- Educational Administration Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-07
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 711-753
- ISSN
- 0013-161X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3519
- PMC
- PMC5513173
- OpenAlex
- W2414507369
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 103.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Educational Administration Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD041020)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Keywords
- teacher evaluation, principals, instructional leadership, teacher professional development, assessment reform, principal training, instructional coaches, peer assessment, urban districts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
