Running Head: EFFECTIVENESS OF QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS

The Effectiveness of Quality Based Teacher Evaluations Robert Elzer Chaminade University of Honolulu

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS Abstract

Teacher evaluation is a critical topic that has lasting effects on student performance and teachers' careers. This review analyzes contemporary literature to determine the effectiveness of evaluations based on teacher quality. Current evaluation systems have failed to provide either teachers or the public with a satisfactory result, and most current systems rate almost all teachers positively, with a fraction of a percent rated unsatisfactory. Research shows that teachers rated higher than peers by expert observation or national observation have strong correlation with student growth measured by value added analysis. Many teachers report dissatisfaction with current evaluation systems and their ability to provide quality feedback to improve teaching practices. Most teachers respond positively when receiving feedback from students, parents, and peers, and find the information useful for improving practices. The lack of a quality based evaluation system leads to unfair and unproductive results when layoffs are necessary. Value added models (VAMs) form the core of most current quality based evaluation systems, but these models display significant measurement errors and by cannot accurately rate teachers by themselves. The review of literature suggests that a multiple source quality based evaluation that includes both VAMs and expert evaluation may be effective. Keywords: Teacher evaluation, student achievement, value added, feedback

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS The Effectiveness of Quality Based Teacher Evaluations Teacher evaluation is a contentious and highly politicized issue that forms the core of

many educational reforms. Teachers deserve evaluations that provide them quality feedback in a fair and consistent manner and reward hard work and good performance. In the same vein, students and parents deserve teachers that are evaluated fairly and ensure that the best and poorest performers are identified and treated appropriately. It is imperative that evaluation systems are not thrust upon teachers as a result of public frustration without quality research. Effective teacher evaluation must be based on thorough, empirical studies and only those methods that can be shown to improve student performance should be adopted. Although teacher evaluation systems differ from state to state, for the most part they rank the overwhelming majority of teachers in the higher brackets and are ineffective at identifying poorer performing teachers (Milanowski, 2011). In some cases, well over 90 percent of teachers are placed into superior or higher performance brackets, even when over 66 percent of the schools were failing to meet standards (Sartain, Stoelinga, & Brown, 2011). In addition, the lack of quality-based evaluations can lead to layoffs based solely on seniority and deprive students of highly motivated, but inexperienced teachers (Boyd, Lankford, Goeb, & Wyckoff, 2010). Clearly, there is a need to reform teacher evaluation systems with a system that can have a positive effect on student performance. Teachers themselves are often frustrated with evaluation systems that cannot differentiate them in comparison to their colleagues and cannot provide them any useful feedback to improve their instruction (Mahar & Strobert, 2010). Evaluation systems are often portrayed to solely benefit students, but they also have the potential to motivate teachers to improve their

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS performance and validate the efforts of the most effective teachers (Mahar & Strobert, 2010).

The use of quality-based evaluations in determining layoff and hiring decisions has the potential to improve teacher morale under a system teachers would view as more equitable (Boyd, Lankford, Goeb, & Wyckoff, 2010). To improve student performance, administrators must develop evaluation systems that teachers will accept as reasonable and effective. Review of Literature This paper investigates the effectiveness of quality based teacher evaluations on student performance through a review of the design and results of recent empirical studies. The review attempts to determine if quality based teacher evaluations contribute to an improvement in student performance and which performance measures are specifically considered most effective, if any. By identifying these answers, the framework for an effective evaluation system can be determined, with an increase in performance and satisfaction for both teachers and students possible. Evaluation Based on Observation and Standardized Test Scores The current system evaluates teachers based on observation, but those observations are typically done by only one or very few individuals, may contain only one observation, and often result in only a small fraction of a percent of teachers categorized as unsatisfactory (Sartain, Stoelinga, & Brown, 2011). Is it possible for an evaluation system based on observations of teachers to improve student performance? In order to do so, an evaluation system using observation must be conducted by several educational experts, be unannounced, and be able to separate teachers into reasonable performance categories (Milanowski, 2011).

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS Sartain, Stoelinga, and Brown (2011) analyzed the results of Chicago's two year Excellence in Teaching Pilot, which attempted to compare the effect of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching on student performance. The study included several hundred teachers in 44 elementary schools in the 2008-2009 school year and 101 in the 2009-2010, with different schools selected in each year. The study compared how high and low rated teachers in reading

and mathematics compared to value added measurements of student performance determined by scores on the Illinois state test (ISAT). The unannounced observations under the framework for teaching were completed by the school principle or vice principle along with outside experts and consisted of 5 to 6 ratings (Sartain et al., 2011). The school administrators and outside experts conducted the observations simultaneously and assigned scores independently of each other. Using a quantitative analysis, Sartain et al. (2011) concluded that there was a statistically significant relationship between teachers rated highly on the framework for teaching (distinguished) and higher levels of student growth on the ISAT. Teachers rated unsatisfactory by their observers on the framework generally had the lowest levels of student growth. Sartain et al. (2011) concluded that the Framework for Teaching is an effective teacher evaluation tool and its use can improve student performance. The researchers state that most teachers could not be included in the study because they do not teach subjects or grades where standardized tests are used. This fact will deter all efforts at linking teacher performance to their students' standardized test scores, as many subjects and grade levels are not tested. Until there is a method for quantitatively analyzing the performance of these subjects and grades, it will be very difficult to assess teacher effectiveness in these areas. Another study on teacher evaluations using the Framework for Teaching researched its effects on public schools in Cincinnati, Ohio, Coventry, Rhode Island, and Washoe county,

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS Nevada (Milanowski, 2011). According to Milanowski (2011), the Framework for Teaching is one of the better basis for teacher evaluation; "Since its introduction, the Framework for Teaching has, by merit and by default, become part of the foundation for efforts to improve

teacher evaluation in the US". This quantitative study consisted of sample sizes ranging from 32 to 248 teachers, comparing their scores on the observation based Framework for Teaching (FFT), and value added analysis of their students' standardized test scores. The study showed moderate levels of correlation between these two variables showing that the FFT was suitable in some regards to show which teachers would have the most student growth on standardized test scores. Milanowski admits considerable measurement error in the study due to errors inherent in the value added scoring itself. The report concludes that "using evaluation scores for consequential decisions can be justified, and that at least some of the practices described by the FFT are associated with student learning, at least as the latter is represented by value-added", (Milanowski, 2011). The FFT validity is somewhat in question as inter-rater agreement ranges from 60-79 percent throughout the three regions in the study (Milanowski, 2011). The highest level of rater agreement was in Cincinnati, suggesting that raters there are better trained or more practiced. Overall, though, Milanowski (2011) concluded that the FTT can be reliable, "the results... do suggest that evaluation ratings from systems based on the FFT can show substantial inter-rater agreement and, if multiple observers and multiple occasions of observation are used, the ratings can be quite reliable". Even with this conclusion, the author recommends that observations should not be the sole method of evaluation, and be combined with other methods, such as value added analysis of test scores.

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS One method of determining the impact of quality or performance based evaluations is to examine the effect that National Board Certified Teachers have on their students' performance. National Board Certified Teachers (NCBTs) are examined on a very demanding basis that takes into account many aspects of teacher excellence that most educators

would agree is appropriate for teacher evaluation. The NCBTs are rated on their commitment to students and learning, subject knowledge and ability to teach it, managing student learning, self reflection and improvement, and membership in a learning community (Vandervoort, AmerinBeardsley, & Berliner, 2004). Do students of NCBTs perform better as indicated by standardized test scores than non-certified teachers? According to Vandervoort et al. (2004), they do: "Board certified teachers have effects on student achievement beyond that produced by non-Board certified teachers". Vandervoort et al.'s (2004) study consisted of 35 NBCTs along with a control group of non-Board certified teachers from 14 Arizona school districts. The study analyzed scores from the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Ed (SAT-9), for students from grades 2-6 from the years 1999-2003. NBCTs averaged student growth scores a few points higher than their non-certified colleagues in reading, math, and language. The net effect of these gains translates into a roughly 25 instructional day advantage per year for the students of NBCTs, putting those students ahead of their peers. The researchers mention that many of the NBCTs, including almost all who declined to participate, were uncomfortable with using the SAT-9 or any other standardized test as a benchmark, because they felt it, "assessment of them by means of a standardized test to be demeaning" (Vandervoort et al., 2004). This may have led to a non-representative sample, as only those NBCTs who were more comfortable with SAT-9 scores participated.

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS A study conducted in 2011 by Stronge, Ward, and Grant was able to demonstrate a correlation between student performance on standardized test scores and evaluations of teachers based on observations. Stronge et al. (2011) conducted a two phase study with the first phase consisting of an analysis of student test scores of 307 fifth grade teachers in reading and math over a two year period. The sample was quite large and broad, it consisted of 110 schools with representation from urban, suburban and rural districts in a south-eastern state. The researchers divided all the teachers into quartiles based on test scores for analysis in the second phase. During the second phase, Stronge et al. selected 17 teachers from the top quartile and 15 teachers from the bottom and sent education experts to observe and video record 3 hours of instruction. Neither the teachers or observers knew which teachers were in the top or bottom quartile. The video was then shown to groups of graduate students and retired educational professionals to rate as a comparison to the original observers. The teachers were rated on 15 aspects of teaching, generally agreed upon as critical for effective instruction. The top quartile teachers exceeded the score of the bottom quartile on every one of the 15 aspects with statistically significant differences on 4 aspects dealing with classroom management, organization, building relationships, and encouraging responsibility (Stronge et al., 2011). The difference in test scores between the top and bottom quartiles were quite large, according to Stronge et al. (2011), the "differences in student achievement in mathematics and reading for effective teachers and less effective teachers were more than 30 percentile points".

This study presents some of the strongest evidence that teachers considered the most effective by educational professionals have students that perform better on standardized test scores. The one area where this study might be improved is in the selection of teachers during the second phase;

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS

randomly selected teachers would provide the most convincing data and the study did not specify how the 32 participating teachers were selected, other than their quartile rank. It's important to note in the preceding studies that an assumption was made that the standardized tests used in the value added methodology really does measure student achievement, but this assumption is in doubt among many teachers. According to Herman, Heritage, and Goldschmidt (2011), more effort needs to be used in the development of these tests: " Little attention, however, has been devoted to the quality of the student assessments that these models use to estimate student growth, which is fundamental to the trustworthiness of any teacher value-added measure". Before we can assess teacher effectiveness based on their students' test scores, we need to make sure that the tests themselves are valid. Evaluation Based on Student, Parent, or Peer Feedback Student feedback has been used extensively in education to guide teacher practices and in some cases as part of teacher evaluation. Although most public school teachers are not currently evaluated based on student feedback, there may be some merit to incorporating a "360 degree" feedback process into teacher evaluation. This kind of evaluation can help minimize biased ratings and provide more useful feedback to teachers by incorporating ratings from students, parents and peer teachers. In a study by Mahar and Strobert (2010), the 360 degree evaluation technique was studied and its effectiveness rated by teachers was measured. Mahar and Strobert's study included 27 teachers from a New York suburban school district in grades K-12 (2010). The researchers used surveys with a Likert scale to obtain feedback from randomly selected students, parents, and colleagues of the 27 sample teachers. When asked about the feedback they received through traditional evaluation, none of the 27

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 10 teachers responded positively and only 29 percent thought it measured student performance. After the 360 evaluation process was completed the teachers were surveyed about the results: over 82 percent thought it was an improvement to the single source evaluation and 67 percent thought it was a good measure of student performance (Mahar and Strobert, 2010). Mahar and Strobert explain, "The participants in this project found the multi-source feedback process to be significantly more helpful than the traditional method in a number of areas, among them developing professional growth goals, identifying professional development needs, and focusing on student achievement" (2010). Although this study was not as in-depth as others in terms of student performance, it does give some insights into incorporating feedback from multiple sources into teacher evaluation both as a tool to rate teachers, and to give them a reliable tool for improving teaching practices. Effects on Dismissal or Layoff Decisions One aspect of quality based evaluations that could potentially have significant effects on student performance is in teacher dismissal or layoff decisions. Layoffs based solely on seniority could deprive students of effective but inexperienced teachers and saddle them with ineffective teachers who have been practicing for many years. Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2010) conducted a study that investigates the effects of using value added analysis as a criteria for dismissal versus traditional seniority in the New York city area from 2006-2009. Boyd et al. (2010) concluded that " that layoffs determined by a measure of teacher effectiveness result in a more effective workforce than would be the case with seniority-based layoffs". The results however, challenged some of the claims that opponents of seniority based layoffs typically present. Since newer teachers are paid less, seniority based layoffs typically

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 11 result in a greater number of teachers dismissed and some may infer that class sizes could grow significantly from this. In contrast, the researchers found that "the differential effect on class size is very small in our simulations" (Boyd et al., 2010). The study also disproved the claim that layoffs would be concentrated in certain schools, typically urban poorer performing schools, and found that under both systems the effects were similarly dispersed. With regards to student performance however, the researchers found "the differences between seniority and effectiveness based layoffs (with regards to value added analysis) are larger and more persistent than we anticipated" (Boyd et al., 2010). The authors lend their support for the use of quality based evaluations that include multiple aspects, " Given the large differences found in our layoff simulation, developing fair and rigorous measures of teacher effectiveness are likely to pay important dividends". This study, similar to many others, is very dependent on student standardized test scores and the use of value added analysis of teaching to rate teacher effectiveness. This can be particularly problematic when evaluating teachers who teach subjects that are not covered by standardized tests. Potential Problems with Evaluation Linked to Student Test Scores Many teachers are rightfully concerned about the increased use of their students' standardized test scores, commonly known as "value added" in their performance evaluations. Students have many factors that influence their performance outside of the classroom; these factors can have significant effects on their test scores that teachers cannot control. In additional, the methods used to analyze the teachers effect on student growth is far from perfect and contains inherent errors. Schochet and Chiang conducted a study in 2010 that demonstrates how

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 12 large these errors can be and shows how teachers can be placed into performance categories that are not really warranted. The researchers identify how important it is to understand the problems with using value added analysis for evaluations as "a critical policy issue due to the increased interest in using value-added estimates to identify high- and low-performing instructional staff for special treatment, such as rewards and sanctions" (Schochet and Chiang, 2010). This study was conducted using typical value added methodology with fabricated data to examine how large of errors could result depending on how many years data was collected. As expected, the more years of data available on any given student, the more fidelity is seen in the results, "Type I and II error rates for comparing a teachers performance to the average are likely to be about 25 percent with three years of data and 35 percent with one year of data" (Schochet and Chiang, 2010). The authors are more amenable towards using value added analysis for entire schools, as the errors are approximately 10 percent less than for teachers, do to larger student sample sizes. This study highlights the dangers and caution that should be used when considering value added evaluations for teachers, especially if it forms a large portion of the evaluation. In another study on the error rates and problems using value added models, DarlingHammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, and Rothstein (2012) compared how teachers would be rated across different value added models (VAMs), courses, and years. Their results showed that altering any of these three criteria would have an almost near certain effect of moving teachers into different deciles, and in some cases up to three deciles (Darling-Hammond et al., 2012). Darling-Hammond et al. (2012) identify several teachers whose ratings on VAMs change drastically from year to year, even so far as from the bottom to top ten percent. The authors believe that VAMs are not a valid method for evaluating teachers, and the use of VAMs

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 13 "assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent from the growth of classmates and other aspects of the classroom context. None of these assumptions is well supported by current evidence" (Darling-Hammond et al., 2012). Darling-Hammond et al. (2012) concluded that VAMs should only be used for research purposes, to gain understanding of how effective teacher evaluations are. Teacher Perceptions of Quality Based Evaluations In order for a new teacher evaluation system to be successful, it must be accepted by the teachers it evaluates as fair and reasonable. It's important to understand teachers' perspectives on various evaluation topics, especially the more contentious ones such as value added models and performance pay. Coggshall, Ott, Behrstock, and Lasagne (2010) conducted a study sampling 890 teachers and used 6 focus groups to determine the opinion of teachers on a multitude of education topics, especially those associated with teacher evaluation and performance. Coggshall et al. (2010) focused especially on younger teachers from generation "y" (Gen Y), as these teachers constitute 18% of the current workforce, doubling from 2006. From margins of 52 to 73 percent, both older and Gen Y teachers approved of performance pay for teachers who become national board certified, teach hard-to-reach students, work in low performing schools, and receive excellent evaluations by principals (Coggshall et al., 2010). In almost all cases Gen Y teachers were more in favor of performance pay for these areas, showing a shift in perception. Approximately half of the Gen Y teachers surveyed thought tying teacher performance pay to student standardized test scores would be effective, while only 27% of older teachers agreed. Gen Y and older teachers generally agreed that there would be multiple detriments to implementing performance pay measures, including jealousy among

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 14 teachers and principal favoritism. Both groups strongly preferred a bonus system that was applied at the school level. Overall both Gen Y and older teachers were agreeable to quality based evaluations, with some hesitation to the use of standardized scores. Major Themes Value added models form the core of quality based evaluations and the overwhelming majority of studies in the last few years on teacher efficacy employ them in some way. Teachers highly rated by educational professionals or by national certification generally have greater gains on value added models than their lower ranked peers. There is significant correlation between teachers who rate well on common measures of teacher effectiveness and their students growth on standardized test scores. This methodology is limited to subjects and grades where standardized testing is used, which excludes the majority of teachers from value added analysis. Questions remain on the effectiveness of standardized tests to actually measure student achievement, and how equitable it is to use these scores to evaluate teachers, considering how many outside factors effect student performance. Teachers find evaluations based on student, parent, and peer feedback to be useful in improving teaching practice and superior to principal evaluations based on limited observation. Using student, parent, and peer feedback limits the effects of a few biased negative student evaluations. Using seniority as the primary factor in layoff decisions is a detrimental practice that negatively effects student performance. Layoffs based on seniority rather than quality result on slightly higher class sizes and somewhat higher turmoil in underperforming schools, but can have large effects on student performance based on value added scores. Using quality based

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 15 evaluations when determining teacher layoffs, whether or not they include value added models, will benefit student performance. Value added models can be an inaccurate means of evaluating teacher performance. Accuracy improves as a greater number of years and samples are included, but even when three years of students' scores are used, errors can result where teachers are rated incorrectly. Teachers who have been evaluated under VAMs have reported large swings in their rankings from year to year, significantly reducing their confidence in using VAM as an evaluation tool. Statistical evidence shows that the use of VAMs, even with multiple years of data can result in over 25 percent of teachers being miss-categorized. Using VAMs for a school wide analysis can be effective and is less likely to produce errors. The majority of teachers approve of the use of quality based evaluation and performance pay in most aspects. The use of VAMs in evaluation is viewed skeptically by many teachers, although most accept it on a school wide basis. Quality evaluation and performance by is viewed more favorably by younger teachers than older ones. By a large margin, younger teachers were more accepting of the use of VAMs in teacher evaluations and believed they could be effective. Discussion With the increased attention it has received over the past few years, quality based teacher evaluations have become a controversial, but probably inevitable change in the public education system. Many states have already begun using or developing quality based evaluations, although the results are far from certain. There are many reasons for changing the current evaluation and one of the most stark is from the teachers themselves, Almy (2011) presents research that shows

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 16 only 43 percent of teachers believe current evaluation systems improve teacher performance. If there are going to be changes to teacher evaluation, they must be based on effective measures that have been demonstrated to improved student outcomes in a fair and meaningful way. Value added models are the most widely used and most controversial means of evaluating teacher performance, and generate a great deal of anxiety among teachers. VAMs are used as the core of many quality based evaluations; in an examination of Florida's evaluation system, Cohen, Franck, Kelliher, Varghese, and Walsh (2012) found that "The law requires that 50 percent of the evaluation must be based on a 'value-added score,' in this instance a score derived from three years worth of student performance growth on state assessments". Considering the error rates when using VAMs discussed earlier and the doubt about isolating a teachers true effectiveness from a standardized test score, a 50 percent weight in an evaluation seems unreasonable. The number of studies on the effectiveness of VAMs in teacher evaluation is also quite small, according to Klassen, Tze, Betts, and Gordon (2011), "the research foundation supporting the connection between teachers efficacy and student outcomes is not as strong as is assumed by most researchers. Relatively few studies... have been conducted that link teachers efficacy with student outcomes". More information may be require before large portions of teachers evaluations are based on VAMs. A more promising direction may be a smaller portion of a teacher's evaluation based on VAMs with 50 percent or more coming from several observations by multiple observers. With the correlation between teachers with high ratings on observations and strong growth on VAMs, the combination of the two could significantly reduce the statistical error inherent in VAMs and improve teacher perceptions of quality based observations. The literature demonstrates that the use of multiple observations with different observers can lead to effective evaluations, especially

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 17 when corroborated with VAMs. This system would also be better suited to rating teachers whose subjects and grades are not evaluated by standardized test scores. More research is clearly warranted in the effectiveness of quality based teacher evaluations on student performance. The most promising current study is the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project, funded by the Bill and Melissa Gates foundation. The goal of the MET project is "to improve the quality of information about teaching effectiveness available to education professionals within states and districtsinformation that will help them build fair and reliable systems for teacher observation that can be used for a variety of purposes, including feedback, development, and continuous improvement" (Gates foundation, 2010). The project is working with over 3000 volunteer teachers to 6 urban and suburban school districts to determine a fair and reliable model for effective teaching based on test scores and observation. The final report of the MET project is schedule for mid to late 2010 and the results should provide a great deal more information about teacher evaluation.

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 18 References Almy, S. (2011). Fair to everyone: Building the balanced teacher evaluations that educators and students deserve. The Education Trust. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 69232621/. Boyd, D. J., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2010). Teacher layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority vs. measures of effectiveness. Brief 12. National Center For Analysis Of Longitudinal Data In Education Research. Retrieved from http:// www.eric. ed.gov/PDFS/ ED517162.pdf. Coggshall, J. G., Ott, A., Behrstock, E., & Lasagna, M. (2010). Retaining teacher talent: The view from generation y. Learning Point Associates and Public Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org. Cohen, E., Franck, V., Kelliher, K., Varghese, P., & Walsh, K. (2012). Teacher quality roadmap: Improving policies and practices in the Miami-Dade county public schools. National Council On Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org. Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6): 8-15. Retrieved from http:// www. kappanmagazine.org. Herman, J. L., Heritage, M., & Goldschmidt, P. (2011). Guidance for developing and selecting assessments of student growth for use in teacher evaluation systems (Extended Version). Assessment And Accountability Comprehensive Center. Retrieved from http://www. cse.ucla. edu/products/policy/shortTermGrowthMeasures_v6.pdf.

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 19 Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M, Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2010). Teacher efficacy research 19982009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educ Psychol Rev, 23:2143. DOI 10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8. Mahar, J., & Strobert, B. (2010). The use of 360-degree feedback compared to traditional evaluative feedback for the professional growth of teachers in K-12 education. Planning And Changing, 41(3-4), 147-160. MET Project. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://metproject.org/. Milanowski, A. T. (2011). Validity research on teacher evaluation systems based on the framework for teaching. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED520519.pdf. Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S., & Brown, E. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Consortium On Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http:// ccsr.uchicago.edu. Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains (NCEE 2010-4004). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/.

QUALITY BASED TEACHER EVALUATIONS 20 Stronge, J. H., Ward, T, J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A crosscase analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4) 339 355. DOI: 10.1177/0022487111404241. Vandevoort, L. G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2004). National board certified teachers and their students achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46). Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org.