The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Refocusing the Debate: Assessing the Purposes and Tools of Teacher Evaluation
Abstract
In this article, John Papay argues that teacher evaluation tools should be assessed not only on their ability to measure teacher performance accurately, but also on how well they inform and support ongoing teacher development. He looks at two major approaches to teacher evaluation reform: value-added measures and standards-based evaluations. Papay analyzes these two approaches both as measurement tools and as professional development tools, illuminating the advantages, drawbacks, and untapped potential of each. In the process, attention is refocused towards a broader conception of the purpose of teacher evaluation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Dozens of districts have also adopted peer evaluation systems where expert teachers assume formal responsibility for evaluating their peers (Papay & Johnson, 2012).”
From Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences (2016) · cites this paper as Papay & Johnson, 2012
In the citing 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).”
From Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences (2016) · cites this paper as Papay & Johnson, 2012
Citations
Cites
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
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
On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B
Kerr, S. (1975) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255378 · Cited by 1,585
On the Specification and Estimation of the Production Function for Cognitive Achievement
Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00097 · Cited by 1,514
Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools
Aaronson, D. M., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2006) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/508733 · Cited by 1,294
Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w14607 · Cited by 832
Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement*
Rothstein, J. (2010) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.175 · Cited by 735
Models for Value-Added Modeling of Teacher Effects
McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T., & Hamilton, L. (2004) · Journal of educational and behavioral statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986029001067 · Cited by 639
(2009) · Issue Lab (Candid) · Cited by 552
On Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2004) · Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00462.x · Cited by 497
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teacher and Teaching Effects on Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373716670260 · Cited by 591
Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.83.2.d11511403715u376 · Cited by 255
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x16653445 · Cited by 208
“The quality of principal leadership as measured by teacher surveys is a strong predictor of teacher turnover and student achievement across schools (Boyd et al., 2011; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Kraft, Marinell, & Yee, 2015; Ladd, 2011).”
Building a More Complete Understanding of Teacher Evaluation Using Classroom Observations
Cohen, J., & Goldhaber, D. D. (2016) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x16659442 · Cited by 202
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x17718797 · Cited by 211
Metadata
- Authors
- Papay, J.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Papay, John
- Venue
- Harvard Educational Review
- Publisher
- Harvard Education Publishing Group
- Published
- 2012-04-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123-141
- ISSN
- 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5045
- OpenAlex
- W62887084
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 43.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard Educational Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Keywords
- teacher evaluation, value-added measures, standards-based evaluation, teacher performance measurement, teacher professional development, assessment reform
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.
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
