ASSESSING TEACHER EVALUATION IN ALBERTA By DAVID …

EVALUATION IN ALBERTA MAIS 701

ASSESSING TEACHER EVALUATION IN ALBERTA

By

DAVID ROSE

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Judy Nielsen

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

April, 2012

Assessing Evaluation MAIS 701

2

ABSTRACT

Evaluation is one method by which teachers can be measured against a norm or teaching standard.

Teachers and administrators in Alberta were surveyed and asked if a single evaluation method can

effectively measure teaching practice? Participants were also asked to discuss and rank different

evaluation methods and provide comments on who might be an effective evaluator. Teachers in Alberta

are not evaluated unless a teacher or administrator requests to have an evaluation; instead, teachers

are required to complete an annual Teacher Professional Growth Plan, or TPGP. Participants were asked

to provide their perspective of the purpose of TPGPs, to describe how they are reviewed within their

school and to evaluate the TPGP effectiveness.


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic Page

Introduction 4

What is the Purpose of an Evaluation? 5

The Alberta Perspective 6

Teacher Professional Growth Plans 7

Data Interpretation 8

Analysis 23

Conclusion 24

Appendix A: Calgary Board of Education Salary Grid 27

Appendix B: Survey Questions 28

Appendix C: Ranking of Evaluation Methods 29

Appendix D: Statistical Data Results and Anecdotal Responses from Surveys 30

A. Teacher Survey Responses 30

B. Administrator Survey Responses 34

References 39


4

Introduction

In education, performance evaluations provide feedback to three separate groups: teachers,

administrators, and governing bodies. To teachers the feedback pertains to classroom organization,

curriculum delivery and general teaching practice. Teachers must be willing to adapt to the ever

changing world around them; periodic curriculum changes, revolving door faculty changes within a

school, and the changing values and needs of the students in the information age.

Administrators are often the ones required to perform evaluations and provide feedback to the

teachers. They are accountable to the parents and students of the school as well as the school board

when teacher-based issues arise. As a result, it is important that administrators have a strong

understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and characteristics of the teachers within their school. This

will assist them each year when they organize the school timetable, assign teachers to their course loads

and make faculty decisions. With watchdog groups, such as the Fraser Institute, publishing schools

results based on provincial exams each year, it is important for administrators to assign teacher roles

appropriately.

Governing bodies delegate a great deal of responsibility to their administrators they appoint. As

a result, administrators must have precise knowledge of their school’s faculty in order to ensure that the

school is providing appropriate curriculum coverage. The school board can then relay that confidence to

their governing body. This relationship requires that the provincial governing body establish a clear

teacher evaluation procedure so that the individual school divisions can design appropriate policy. Such

procedures are necessary in order to ensure commonality amoung the many school divisions within the

province.

Teacher accountability in all aspects of education is becoming increasingly important due not

only to the statistics being published but also because of inappropriate actions on the part of teacher

that appear on different social media; such as Facebook, Yahoo and You Tube. Recently a CBS news


5

headline read: “In Georgia Teacher Resigns, NAACP Wants Others Fired Over Slavery Math Homework”.

This is one of seemingly endless examples of teacher abuse. As a result, governing bodies are raising the

frequency of teacher evaluations. Are these new evaluations being developed effectively or are they

merely a knee-jerk reaction or band-aid solution? This paper will examine the purpose of teacher

evaluation, examine how Alberta Education evaluates its teachers and present a sampling of the teacher

and administrator perspectives of evaluation in an attempt to answer the question, is there one right

teacher evaluation system?

What is the Purpose of an Evaluation?

According to Alberta Education there are 598,430 students enrolled in 2,119 schools in 2011-

2012 school year (http://www.education.alberta.ca/apps/statistics/numberofschools.asp). To maintain

the goal of a 30:1 student:teacher ratio, a condition of the last labor negotiation in 2009, this would

require approximately 19,948 teachers. This large number of teachers in the Province presented a

significant challenge, the challenge of how to perform teacher evaluations that were both consistent

and equitable.

In the business world, employee assessment may be required for job advancement, salary

increase, and profit sharing. In the field of education however, a teacher does not require an evaluation

in order to gain advancement into administration. In spite of the fact that teachers and administrators

are both active members in The Alberta Teachers Association members and therefore hold this

membership in common, a teacher who moves into an administrative role may not be given that

promotion based on student-based achievement or performance evaluation. Instead their appointment

is often based on additional schooling, such as completion of a masters or doctoral degree or

participation in school board based committee(s). Unlike the business world, teachers do not require an

evaluation for salary purposes. Instead, teacher salary is tied to a “salary grid” that is based on years of

training and experience. Azordegan, et al. (2005) examined how various forms of teacher compensation


6

would impact teaching practice. Traditionally, teacher salaries have been linked to a grid that measures

education training and years of teaching experience, “sometimes called the “steps and lanes”

compensation system” (p. 1). An example of the connection between teacher training, years of

experience and salary is provided in Appendix A.

Finally, education is similar to a non-profit organization in that it can continue to operate in a

deficit financial position, even with provincial funding. As a result, teacher evaluations cannot be tied to

profit sharing. One can see that evaluation in education and in the business world have a completely

different focus. So one may ask why teachers are evaluated. Currently in Alberta, teacher evaluation

may only occur if requested, either by the teacher or an administrator. However, with the influence that

a teacher has on the students they teach, it seems important that their teaching practice is evaluated on

an ongoing basis as opposed to an evaluation occurring upon request.

The Alberta Perspective

Alberta Education (http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/certification/standards/teacher.aspx) defines

evaluation as:

“The formal process of gathering and recording information or evidence over a period of time

and the application of reasoned professional judgment by a principal in determining whether

one or more aspects of the teaching of a teacher exceeds, meets or does not meet the teaching

quality standard.”

Further, Alberta Education has outlined the guidelines by which teacher evaluation is governed in

Sections 10-13 of the Teacher Growth, Supervision and Evaluation Policy.

Although this is a straight-forward definition, one could ask if it addresses questions regarding

good teaching practice, questions such as: Are there specific characteristics that are common to good

teachers? If such characteristics exist, are they measurable? Which form of evaluation would identify

these key characteristics? Who is the best person to measure and identify these characteristics? Do

teachers themselves have a role in their own evaluation? The answer to these questions is no. Instead of


7

identifying the characteristics that make a “good” teacher, evaluators often measure a teacher’s abilities

against a standard. Toch and Rothman (2008) provide examples of general, non-specific evaluation

statements, “instructional design, instructional implementation, assessment of learning and teachers’

abilities to analyze teaching and learning – using four standards: conditional, competent, proficient, and

advanced” (p. 10). These evaluation-based statements do not identify actual methods being used by a

teacher or the effectiveness of those methods; instead the statements are used by an evaluator as a

checklist of visible teacher characteristics.

What does Alberta Education define as the characteristics of a good teacher? Alberta Education

discusses teacher quality standards (TQS) in Section K of the Teacher Quality Standard to the Provision of

Basic Education in Alberta, Ministerial order #016/97, but the website

(http://www.education.alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx) provides no

measurable statements. Without measurement statements to help guide, how are evaluators trained to

understand and identify what the Teacher Quality Standard is? If there is no training or consistency, how

can a teacher meet a standard that varies depending on the philosophy of the evaluator? A lack of

measurable outcomes leaves the door open to a wide spectrum of policies that school divisions may

devise to address teacher evaluation. As a result, teacher evaluation will vary school to school and

school board to school board.

Without an evaluation policy, Alberta teachers are not required to undergo regular assessment

of their teaching practice. Instead, they are required to submit an annual Teacher Professional Growth

Plan (TPGP).

Teacher Professional Growth Plans

Section J of Alberta Education’s Teacher Growth, Supervision and Evaluation Policy

(http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/certification/standards/teacher.aspx) states: “Teacher

professional growth means the career-long learning process whereby a teacher annually develops and

http://www.education.alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx

http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/certification/standards/teacher.aspx


8

implements a plan to achieve professional learning objectives or goals that are consistent with the

teaching quality standard”. This section, once again, leaves a spectrum of interpretations for school

boards, individual schools and their administrators. In theory, Section j does outline the practice for

completing TPGPs but there are no prescribed methods to which all schools must comply.

Data Interpretation

Data for this study was gathered by means of an anonymous on-line survey of teachers and

administrators, most of whom are based in Alberta, Canada. Each survey consisted of questions that

required the participants to respond with a closed response, an anecdotal response or both (Appendix

B). The survey was a voluntary process and participants were not specifically selected from any one

curriculum area, school division or working environment. Survey results are presented in this paper

under headings called Survey Topics A to J.

Survey Topic A: Classification of Work Environment

The first topic identified the type of school that the survey participant has predominately

worked in for the past five years. It was designed to ascertain if a cross section of various education

experiences was present in the survey results. The majority of teachers that replied (Teacher Survey

Question 1, Teacher Table 1, Teacher Graph 1) work for a public school board (73.8%), followed by

private school (16.4%), separate schools (8.2%), and charter schools (1.6%). Similarly, most

administrators who replied (Administrator Survey Question 1, Admin Table 1, Graph 1) work in public

education (72.7%) with the remaining respondents working in private education (27.3%).

Although the results appear to be skewed towards public education employees, the percentage

of respondents are similar to the provincial population statistics provided by Alberta Education

(http://www.education.alberta.ca.apps/statstics/numberofschools.asp) where1,440 of the 2,134

schools (67.47%) in Alberta are operates via public school authorities, private schools account for 147

(6.89%), separate schools account for 377 (17.66%) and charter schools account for 20 (9.37%).


9

Survey Topic B: Professional Experience

This topic determined each participant’s years of teaching. It is important to consider work

experience as it may have an influence on how the participants respond to different survey questions.

Some teachers will be able to draw upon personal experience when responding to questions regarding

teaching practice, evaluation and professional development while others might not. According to

Hanushek, et al. (2005), “though experience does matter, it only matters in the first five years [of a

teacher’s career]” (p. 18). Teachers do have their own teaching style and different schools offer different

teaching experiences. A new or less experienced teacher will have not only the daily rigors of their job to

deal with but the added pressure of being new to the position. This added pressure might prevent

him/her from understanding how teacher evaluation and professional development fits into the larger

picture of education. The teacher survey results indicate that the participants are primarily experienced

teachers. Specifically, Teacher Table 2 and Teacher Graph 2 indicates that 80.3% of respondents have 10

or more years of teaching experience while 18.0% have between 5 and 10 years experience. That leaves

only 1.6% of the teachers with 1 to 4 years of experience and 0% in their first year of teaching.

In terms of the administrator professional experience (Admin Table 2, Admin Graph 2) results

were somewhat different in that there were more administrators with less experience. Although no

participant had less than one year of experience, 36.4% of administrators had between 1 and 4 years of

experience, a significantly higher percentage than the teacher group. There were far fewer

administrators with less than 5 years of experience in comparison to teachers, 63.7% and 98.3%,

respectively.

Survey Topic C: Frequency of Teacher Evaluation

Results of this part of the survey produced 57 responses, more than half which demonstrated

positive support for annual evaluations. One participant stated:


10

“Yes. It promotes and encourages growth and might prevent teachers from slipping into ruts,

but there are other and perhaps better methods of accomplishing the same thing. Teaching a

wider variety of courses, for example, or changing locations.

It appears that most teachers support the idea of formal evaluation, although not always on an

annual basis. Some of the positive responses were qualified by this example: “Yes it’s a great idea and

can be a powerful growth tool. However there needs to be some recognition that good evaluation

takes time and we are already pushed to the limits.

Other teachers identify that evaluation would help to combat complacency among their peers,

as is indicated in the statement: “Yes. Many tenured teachers are "comfortable" in their job security and

no longer feel the need to try.”

Others stated that they agree with regular evaluation but that having an evaluation every year

may be too frequent. One teacher wrote: “Not sure about every year, but at least every 3-5 a formal

evaluation should be done.”

Finally, there was a group of teachers that do not believe in evaluation. One commented by

saying: “No, we are professionals and should be treated as such. It is our responsibility to pursue

improvements and access current practices”.

Although administrators offered various viewpoints, there was an overwhelming positive

response in support of annual evaluations (63.6%). The rest of the respondents either supported

evaluation but not on an annual basis (18.2%) or indicated that it was an unrealistic expectation of

administrators (18.2%).

Survey Topic D: Obstacles to effective teacher evaluation?

In addition to providing an opinion about annual evaluation, teachers were asked to identify

what obstacles they see as preventing effective evaluation (Teacher Graph 5). They identified a lack of

administrative time as the greatest obstacle. Given the fact that teacher evaluation is commonly the

responsibility of school administration, teachers suggest that administrators need more time to perform


11

evaluations . The second greatest obstacle identified by teachers was consistency of norms, while the

third was the accountability of evaluators. These three choices are represented by the following

percentage: 48.6%, 45.5% and 52.5% respectively. The data suggests that teachers have a lack of

confidence in evaluation systems. Toch and Rothman (2008) support the teacher’s lack of confidence in

subjective administrative evaluations in this statement, “Principals use evaluations to help improve

performance as rarely as they give unsatisfactory ratings. They frequently don’t even bother to discuss

the results of their evaluations with teachers” (p. 8).

Two teacher anecdotal responses illustrate the lack of confidence they have in evaluations being

effective:

“How about it being such a complex task (teacher evaluation that is), that it is very difficult to

assess teachers uniformly. An evaluator can either become very general in the observations

they make and therefore not very constructive or be very specific which would then not be

uniform. And the process of evaluation cannot end with the evaluation but must also be

followed up on afterwards.”

“Being invited to evaluate someone's best lesson is like inviting guests for dinner. Anyone can

clean up for company, but maybe it’s what condition the 'house' is in on a daily basis that really

matters.”

The first response indicates that no one evaluation system can fit the multi-faceted design of

teaching. The second response indicates that on a pre-arranged basis, any one teacher can deliver their

‘best’ lesson, but is that a true indication of their classroom environment? Hundley (2005)

acknowledges: “Principals were quite good at identifying teachers in their school who produced the

biggest and smallest achievement gains, but were less effective at making finer-grained distinctions

among teachers in the middle of the distribution, and they tended to discriminate against male and

untenured teachers” (p.1).

As with teachers, administrators were asked what they perceived to be the greatest obstacles to

effective evaluation. The one they identified as posing the greatest obstacle was a lack of time. The


12

second greatest obstacle was a lack of financial resources, followed by the accountability of evaluators

(Admin Graph 5). Toch and Rothman (2008) support the administrators’ concerns over a lack of time and

norms for teacher evaluation and equate teacher evaluation to a grocery list, “A single, fleeting

classroom visit by a principal or other building administrator untrained in evaluation wielding a checklist

of classroom conditions and teacher behaviour that often don’t even focus directly on the quality of

instruction” (p. 5).

Survey Topic E: Methods of Teacher Evaluation

Teacher statistical and anecdotal responses regarding methods of teacher evaluation are

presented independently as i) Statistical Data Review, and ii) Anecdotal Response Review.

i) Statistical Data Review

Teachers were given ten different methods of evaluation (Appendix C) and asked to rank them

in one of four categories – Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree (Teacher Table 4). Each

ranking was rated one through four, with strongly agree receiving a value of one and strongly disagree a

value of four so that a lower score indicates more support for a particular method of evaluation. The

method of evaluation that teachers consider to be the most effective (Teacher Table 4, Teacher Graph 4)

was self assessment and reflection (1.65). This response was followed by peer evaluation: common

specialty (1.82), and then by student survey at end of course (2.10). Teachers did not identify

administrator evaluations until their fourth and fifth selections, which was significantly lower than how

the administrators ranked themselves. Peterson (2000) suggests: “Principals are not accurate evaluators

of teaching performance and that teachers have little confidence in performance evaluation as a

process” (p. 1). Teacher responses to comparison of student performance had a rating average of 2.78.

Medley and Coker (1987) support the teaches’ choice; “Some research has found that the correlation is

low between teachers’ performance evaluation ratings and student performance” (p. 1). Lagging behind


13

all other forms of evaluation was information provided by parents at the end of the course with a rating

average of 3.05.

Self assessment and reflection (Admin Table 5) was the top response in support of effective

teacher assessment selected by the administrators with a rating average of 1.90. Perhaps this choice

was ranked significantly higher than the others because it can be measured by means of annotated

notes and submitted reports.

The administrator group aligned with the teacher group on the remaining top five methods of

evaluation, though in a different sequence. Ranked second by administrators was assessment by

administrator on an unannounced basis (2.20), followed by assessment by administrator on a pre-

arranged day (2.30), and a tie for fourth was peer evaluation: common specialty and student survey at

end of course (2.40). In a collegial school environment, placing teachers in a position whereby they are

required to provide feedback on the performance of a peer may not produce the desired results of a

formal evaluation. Administrator responses illustrate that they believe administrators do provide an

effective means of evaluation. They ranked administrative evaluation on a pre-arranged basis and

unannounced second and third respectively.

One method of evaluation that the two groups differed on was a comparison of student

performance. Teachers ranked this method as their eighth choice, while administrators had it in the

sixth position. It is difficult to determine with certainty whether administrators ranked it higher based

on results in a testing session in comparison to the provincial results on the same exam or on a teacher’s

results of many exams over a number of years. Due to the cyclic nature of education and the various

interactions that are possible with different combinations of students, comparison on a single exam may

not prove useful due to the immeasurable pressures on students that extend beyond the classroom. If

the intention of the response was to examine the trend of student results over a longer period of time

such as five years, perhaps there would have been more consistency in response between the two


14

groups on that particular choice. Both groups did place peer evaluation (different teaching specialty) and

evaluation by an external contractor in approximately the same position, ranking the two choices in

sixth and seventh position and the external contractor choice in the ninth position.

Another area where the two groups differed was in ranking the Teacher Professional Growth

Plans (TPGP) and the parent surveys. Teachers rank the TPGP seventh, while the administrators ranked

parent surveys seventh. In survey question three (Appendix B), administrators sent a message when

they overwhelmingly responded that they believe that more teachers put only “some time and develop

similar goals” each year (2.8%). Teachers offered a different perspective by placing more credence in the

amount of work they put into the development of their TPGs. Responses between teachers and

administrators varied in the parental input choice as well, perhaps because administrators must

consider what parents have to offer, whereas teachers may be able to more easily dismiss parental

input.

ii) Anecdotal Response Review

Many of the anecdotal responses provided by teachers identified weaknesses as opposed to

strengths in particular evaluation methods. Most of the comments centered on models of evaluation

that teachers rated in the bottom half of their preferences. One teacher stated: “TPGPs provide no real

follow up!”. This comment could indicate a lack of teacher confidence in the effectiveness of TPGPs as a

means of evaluation. In terms of student performance (ranked 8), one teacher stated: “I think provincial

exams give a snapshot of how a student is doing on that particular day. It is not a clear reflection of what

a student is capable of or what they know”. This comment suggests that evaluation based on student

performance is unreliable. A single exam evaluation is cyclical and may not actually represent the

effectiveness of a teacher over time. These results may also be biased by the teacher’s experience and

his or her participation in diploma and provincial achievement exam marking sessions. Teachers who

participate in marking provincial exams receive valuable insight into how the exam is graded and in turn


15

could provide exam strategies for their students. This form of teacher professional development

provides what is known as value-added learning. Value-added learning is the enhancement that

students receive as a result of a higher educational experience, such as exam strategies provided by

marking provincial exams. Value-added statistics are becoming increasingly important as more and more

school divisions are using student results over time as a measuring tool in place of results of a single

exam. Jacob and Lefgren (2005) describe value-added teaching: “We find that a subjective principal

assessment of teachers predict future student achievement significantly better than teacher experience,

education or actual compensation, though not as well as value-added teacher quality measures” (p. 2).

Another participant commented on the choice of an external contractor (ranked 9). “I don't agree with

any evaluation procedure that is not over seen by a professional body, or has some form of checks and

balances”. This response suggests a lack of trust in the motives of an external contractor. Further, as

stated in the anecdotal responses, the understanding of the school demographics and individual

teaching challenges is crucial in understanding why or how a person teaches. In terms of the parental

survey (ranked 10) choice, one participant responded by saying: “Parents will rate your performance

based on their student's achievement, good or bad”. The trend in teachers’ responses seems to revolve

around experience, information and trust.

One area that teachers and administrators agreed on was school and classroom dynamics.

Comments provided in the survey identified issues and challenges that the school and teacher may face.

An evaluator, whether internally or externally based, must be aware of these challenges in order to

provide a fair and effective evaluation of a teacher or school. The following comment by an

administrator highlights the need for evaluation methods that are fair and effective:

“Self evaluation and evaluations provided by those with a vested interest in achievement or

with potential to form a severely biased opinion cannot be effective. Additionally, performance

on a single assessment should not be used as it is not the sole purpose of the course and does

not reflect all that a course encompasses.”


16

Survey Topic F: The Role of the TPGP?

It is interesting to hear the perceptions of people who are required to complete mandated

activities assigned by their superiors. In the case of the TPGPs, a teacher’s perception may not align with

Alberta Education’s perception. Since the Professional Growth Plans fall within the Teacher Growth,

Supervision and Evaluation Policy, Alberta Education has established two directive statements. First, that

a professional growth plan should link directly to a teacher’s learning and second, that there should be

improvement throughout a teacher’s career. In the eyes of Alberta Education, the tying of these

concepts together should enable constant growth on the part of teachers. This translates into better

education delivery of curriculum to the students.

In Alberta, where formal evaluations are done by request, an evaluation often results in reaction

to an event that has occurred. As a result, many schools operate with the TPGP serving as the only

means by which teacher development is measured. Due to time constraints and increasing school

populations, TPGPs are a quick reference for administration to monitor teacher development. Using

TPGPs as a method to monitor teachers is a concern since Alberta Education does not consider TPGPs to

be an evaluation method. Although Sections 7 and 8 of the Procedures section of the Teacher Growth,

Supervision and Education Policy indicate how TPGPs are to be implemented, the implementation

descriptions provide vague guidelines. As a result, there is a growing misconception regarding the

purpose of TPGPs. This can be seen in question 5 of the teacher’s survey (Appendix B). Responses were

categorized into five different areas: reduced administrator evaluation, goal setting, teacher

improvement, teacher motivation and general mistrust. In terms of reducing administrator evaluation,

one teacher stated: “It should have been an effective tool - now in my case, it is a piece of paper, signed

by an administrator, and never followed through with on their end”. In response to goal setting, another

teacher said: “The purpose of the TPGP is to have us set attainable goals and then work towards them”.

In terms of teacher improvement, the following comment was made: “The purpose of the TPGP is for


17

teachers to have a direction or focus for the year. What they plan on working towards professionally”.

For the teacher motivation choice, a teacher commented: “The purpose of the TPGP is to include and

motivate teachers into taking responsibility for their own professional growth”. To illustrate general

mistrust, one teacher stated: “Just another menial task for teachers to complete for the "higher ups" to

justify the profession”. Although the majority of the 58 teacher responses did focus on the idea of

teacher reflection and improvement by means of planning, there appears to be a far from consistent

understanding of the purpose of a professional growth plan by the teachers in this study.

The administrators presented a view that is more consistent with Alberta Education regarding

the purpose of TPGPs. In almost all of the responses, administrators refer to improved teaching practice

and growth. It would appear that the fundamental definition of TPGPs for this sampling of

administrators is consistent with Alberta Education.

Survey Topic G: Development of TPGP

This topic examined the amount of perceived time and effort put into a TPGP by teachers.

Results of the survey are split into two components for analysis. Teacher Survey Question 3a examined

the time and creativity put forth by teachers in the development of their annual TPGP and Teacher

Survey Question 3 compared the amount of time teacher’s currently commit to the development of the

TPGP, as compared with when the TPGPs was first introduced. Murnane and Cohen (1986) highlight the

importance of teacher involvement in the evaluation process: “Teachers’ impressions of performance-

evaluation systems play a crucial role in the success of performance-based-pay programs” (p. 1). This

comment implies that teacher’s are more likely to participate in evaluation programs when their input is

directly required. The results of survey question 3 indicate that teachers expel different amounts of

effort in developing their TPGP. According to the teachers surveyed (Teacher Graph 3a, Teacher Table

3a), a small percentage of these teachers (6.8%) put forth a “great deal of time and create unique goals”

while others (45.8%) invest “some time and create different goals. Some teacher are less invested and


18

only put forth a small effort (35.6%) “some time and develop similar goals” while a small percentage of

others (1.7%) admit to putting in “little time and use the same goals”. Of the teachers surveyed, 10.1%

did not reply to the question.

The second half of question 3 asked teachers to compare the amount of time they currently

commit to developing their TPGP with the time they took to do this task when TPGPs were first

introduced in 1998. The results (Teacher Graph 3b, Teacher Table 3b) demonstrate that the majority of

teacher’s spend equal or less time now than when TPGPs were introduced (46.8% and 37.9%

respectively) whereas only a small percentage spend more time (7.9%). Results of this part of the

question could be interpreted to mean that teachers view TPGP as having less significance now and

instead see it as an annual chore.

Administrators had a similar, but more neutral position regarding TPGP development as

compared with teacher response. Administrator results (Admin Table 3, Admin Graph 3) indicate that

they believe that only 27.3% of teachers put forth “some time with different goals” while the majority of

administrators (72.7%) believe teachers put in “some time developing similar goals” each year. One has

to wonder what the reason is behind these contrasting results. Could disengagement between

administrators and teachers, especially when a teacher becomes an administrator, be caused by the fact

that the administrator may be privy to information that the teacher does not have access to?

Survey Topic H: Motivation to Complete TPGP

According to teacher response, only 10 out of 57 (17.5%) teachers received feedback from their

administrators regarding their TPGP, 4 out of 57 (7.0%) stated that they sometimes receive input and 43

out of 57 (75.5%) identified that they receive no feedback about the design of their TPGP. Survey results

suggest that if a program is mandated and the teacher’s work on the TPGP is not being followed up by

their superior, it may be challenging to get buy in.


19

When examining the effectiveness of a program, it is important to determine the participant’s

motivation or the importance superiors or supervisors place on the program. The importance of the

program may be measured by the frequency, depth and accountability of the program’s results. Less

than half of the administrators (45.4%) surveyed (Admin Table 8, Admin Graph 9) claimed to complete a

personal review of all TPGPs within their school. Another 9.1% indicated that although they did not do a

review personally, another administrator in the school did a review of all teacher TPGPs. A further 18.2%

of the participating administrators delegated the responsibility to department heads or to the teachers

themselves. Finally, 27.3% noted that they either had insufficient time to review TPGPs or that they

spent no time in reviewing TPGPs each year. Would the teacher’s perceptions of TPGPs be different if

they witnessed a more determined effort on the part of administrators? Although administrators

demonstrated a good understanding of the purpose behind the TPGP, they appeared less willing to

”throw their support behind it” completely.

Survey Topic I: Effectiveness of TPGP

After teachers were asked what the purpose of the TPGP was and commented on how it was

monitored by their superiors, a question was asked about whether they believe that a TPGP does what it

is meant to. Teacher response to this question varied and fell into three categories.

The first category included many teachers who declare that the TPGP does fulfill its intended

purpose. As professional educators who believe in life-long learning, they find the TPGP program useful

for setting both short and long term goals for their own learning and professional development. These

teachers believe that there are ways to improve curriculum delivery and their own professional learning

so as to avoid complacency. Teacher survey comments include the following statement: “I think that is

up to the individual teacher. If a teacher takes their TPGP seriously, then it is effective and it should not

matter who is reading your TPGP. If you take teaching as a profession seriously, you should always be

striving to improve, and then ultimately you are accountable to yourself”.


20

The second group of teachers fell into the maybe/maybe not category in terms of whether the

TPGP does what it is intended to do. One gets the impression from their response, that these teachers

are under time and pressure constraints and although they do put forth an effort, they realize that they

have more to give. This group of teachers is influenced by external factors such as professional

development funding, the actions of the administrators when it comes to the review and discussion of

their TPGPs, and the amount of perceived time they put forth into school for events such as student

tutoring and extra-curricular activities. One teacher stated a concern about the TPGP: “They would put

in more time to their TPGP if more funding was available to provide PD. Without funding, the TPGP is

difficult to fulfill on a meaningful level”.

The third group indicated that they did not believe that the TPGP does what it is intended to do.

Perhaps these teachers take a negative approach to any program that is mandated, including ones that

they appear to agree with in principle. However, when required to complete a TPGP, they put forth

minimal effort. This attitude is reflected in the following statement: “TPGPs do not do what they are

intended to because they are often seen as "one more thing to do" and so do not receive the time

required to be useful”.

These varying perspectives reveal that teachers who see the TPGPs as a personal experience and

growth vehicle use it appropriately. Those who do not see it as a useful program or take issue with the

fact that it is mandated may put forth minimal time and effort. One might ask if a goal based program

can survive without consistent review and analysis.

The administrators’ responses to this question fell into the three categories as well. Some

related the TPGP program to life-long learning. As one administrator stated: “If there is genuine interest

on the part of leadership and accountability to these people, yes the TPGP does what is intended to do.”

Other administrators were uncertain of the TPGP accountability as is evident in the comment: “I believe

that the TPGP provides an opportunity/forum in which to plan out professional growth but there is no


21

accountability regarding whether that happens or not”. Finally, some administrators cast a doubt on the

entire TPGP process. One administrator stated: “TPGPs have become a menial task placed on a “to do

list”.

One of the major hurdles in the development of TPGPs is that no two classrooms or schools are

alike. As a result, implementing a general policy like TPGPs is often more practical on paper than it turns

out to be in real life. It has been shown that in order for a program to be effective, it must be developed

and nurtured at the grassroots level. This is not the case with the TPGP. It is a provincially mandated

program that was developed with seemingly little care for the daily interactions of teachers and

administrators. Supporters of the program must believe that it is reasonable to ask professional

teachers to set two or three annual goals and once the goals are set, the teacher would share them with

the school administrator. Then, at the end of the school year, the two could re-visit the plan to see if the

teacher was successful in accomplishing his or her goals. Although this process appears straight-

forward, life often gets in the way. For example, the start of the school year presents a massive juggling

act for administrators and teachers alike and, if they are involved in a semester school year, this process

occurs twice. Then once the school year is established, there are continuing demands placed on

teachers and administrators and it may take several months of planning for an administrator to meet

with the entire teaching staff and review their TPGPs. By the time TPGPs are submitted, typically at the

end of October, and then reviewed (if they are), almost half of the school year is gone. One important

question remains. What if a teacher submits a TPGP that does not meet an administrator’s standards or

fails to complete the goals they have set? What penalty might be used when compliance is either

minimal or non-existent? Perhaps if a teacher puts forth minimal effort in completing the TPGP and no

action is taken, the door could be open to allow others to submit minimal work on their own TPGP.


22

Survey Discussion J: Preferred Method of Professional Development

If regular teacher evaluations are not required and TPGPs are not designed to monitor teacher

development, what form of professional development would teachers prefer? This question was posed

to teachers. Teacher response to Question 9 (Appendix B) indicated significant support for: peer

collaboration, provincial exam marking and item writing, professional conferences, self assessment and

reflection, university or curriculum development courses, and the development profession learning

groups as preferred methods of teacher development. The use of self assessment and reflection in

particular may have been chosen because it provides a teacher with the opportunity to be more self-

directed.

John Centra (1994) described a manner by which a teacher may maintain their individuality and

also track their progress:

“The teaching portfolio has been heralded as the latest contribution to effective teaching

evaluation. Borrowed from such professions as art and architecture, in which professionals

display examples of their work for prospective clients or employers, the concept is not totally

new. Not long ago the same idea was called a teaching dossier, defined as a "summary of a

professor's major teaching accomplishments and strengths” (p. 14).”

What about extrinsic motivation? Though not prevalent in Alberta, one form of evaluation being

used is performance-based financial rewards. Azordegan, et al. (2005) state, “Studies generally find that

teachers in performance-award systems exhibit greater motivation toward improved student

performance, with motivation varying based on the teachers’ perception of the award systems fairness”

(p. 2). Fundamentally it provides a “win-win-win” situation to three groups. First, students are provided

with a motivated teacher, which in turn should help to increase their academic performance. Second,

teachers receive a financial bonus for increasing student results. Third, administrators can advertise the

success of their school based on the cooperative learning environment of their teachers and students.

Although this is an interesting concept, it is difficult to maintain equity. As a result, these choices are

seldom adopted as preferred ways to engage teachers in profession development.


23

Analysis

Interest in teacher accountability seems to be a growing area in the field of education. Along

with this may be a feeling of distrust on the part of teachers and a concern that an equitable and reliable

system of evaluation cannot be developed. As a result, there appears to be an increased influence of

teaching unions on teachers, where the union is called on to protect the interests and job security of its

members. One must ask if union involvement is a good solution to finding an effective system of teacher

evaluation. Some would argue that it is not because union involvement might be used to protect

mediocre teachers from growing expectations of parent and students. At one point in time, the

classroom was viewed as an autocratic environment where a teacher’s decisions were not questioned.

This is no longer the case as teachers are held accountable for student learning where student results

are used as a measurement standard. If the students in a teacher’s classroom do not measure up,

questions are asked and data is published. Although the questions being asked may not reveal the truth

or the data may be skewed, questions are none-the-less being asked.

An excellent example of how data can be skewed to present a particular point of view can be

found in the New York Times (February 23, 2012). Winnie Hu authored an article entitled With Teacher

Ratings Set To Be Released, Union Opens Campaign To Discredit Them. The issue at hand is that the New

York Education system has generated “Teacher Data Reports” using a “value-added” rating system with

the intention of ranking teachers based on their findings over the next 5 years. These finding were then

published for nearly 18,000 teachers. In response, the teachers union has waged a year-and-a-half long

legal battle to keep the teacher names confidential. Yu cites the United Federation of Teachers

President, Michael Mulgrew who declares, “This is No Way to Rate a Teacher”. He continued his

criticism of why ratings are problematic by stating: “displaying complex mathematical formulas followed

by a checklist of reason why the ratings are problematic”. School Chancellor Dennis Walcott countered

by explaining that the statistical data provides administrators with a more objective look at teacher’s


24

performance. He continues by explaining that although the data will be published, the Department of

Education will work hard to “make sure parents and the public understand how to interpret the Teacher

Data Reports”. He goes on to state a warning: “Although we can’t control how reporters use this

information.” This reporting of data related to teacher performance does not instill a feeling of trust in

the teachers whose results are being published. Marie Kallo, a sixth-grade English teacher questioned

the validity of the report by saying:, “It said I had taught 120 students in 2007-08 when actually I had

taught more than 200”. She goes on to say: “I do not understand how the ratings were calculated” and

asks, “How is it fair to be judged on information that is not accurate?” One heartfelt plea by a teacher

stood out when she said:

“For many of us in N.Y.C., this has been our life’s calling. We are constantly attacked on so many

levels for what ails education in our country when we know that it takes a community to help

children learn: principals, administrators, parents, lawmakers, and yes, teachers. The

responsibility cannot lie solely on us.”

Distrust in a teacher evaluation system was evident in the teachers’ survey responses. Although

most teachers appear to adhere to the TPGPs process, they expressed that they did so because they are

required to. In spite of the fact that they saw merit in the TPGP process, they expressed concern about

not receiving feedback from their superiors.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher evaluation processes being used in Alberta

with the hope of discovering an effective one. At the conclusion of the study, I do not believe that there

is a single evaluation system that works in all situations. Evaluation programs are being developed with a

narrow focus and are then applied to a broad setting. Yet, no two settings are alike. Success often hinges

on the motivation of the front line workers. This is true in education where three vastly different groups

interact, administrators, teachers and students. The three groups have a significant relationship that

must function well in order to achieve its maximum potential.


25

Almost 20 years ago, Thomas McGreal submitted document entitled Successful Teacher Evaluation

to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. It began with the identification of

important functions in an evaluation system. McGreal based this on the work of Bolton (1973) who

identified the following functions of teacher evaluation:

1. To improve teaching through the identification of ways to change teaching systems, teaching

environments, or teaching behavior

2. To supply information that will lead to the modification of assignments, such as placements in

other positions, promotions and terminations

3. To protect students from incompetence, and teachers from unprofessional administrators

4. To reward superior performance

5. To validate the school system’s teacher selection process

6. To provide a basis for teachers’ career planning and professional development (p. 8)

In the last 20 years, little has changed. These six functions continue to be critical in achieving

success. Many different political figures have introduced their version of educational reform. For

example, the United Stated Congress introduced No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. NCLB was

designed with the intent to:

“Support standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards

and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act

requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all

students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. The Act does not assert

a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.”

Even with such an idealistic principal and seemingly significant funding, the program was not a

sure fire solution, Wikipedia reports, “Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education

from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. Funding tied to NCLB received a 40.4% increase from

$17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to

$1.2 billion”. It goes to show that successful programs are not simply applied unilaterally across a large

group. However, there is an equal chance that a locally developed program would meet with equal

disappointment.


26

In conclusion, the answer to the question “What is an effective evaluation program?” is not

clearly evident. Examination of teachers and administrators response to survey questions does not

produce an answer that confirms one evaluation method over another. Perhaps this is because teacher

evaluation cannot be measured in the same way that a sales position or the stock market is measured. A

teacher’s position is very complex, there are too many “moving parts”. An effective evaluation program

must address the concerns of all involved and may need to transition back and forth between being

employee-centered to being employer-centered. To do so, the program must include aspects of: trust

and transparency, reliability and norms, accountability and feedback and include pre-determined

repercussions. These components put everyone in the program an equal basis. Trust and transparency

must be established so that the participants understand what and how things needs to be done and that

their performance will be measureable against fair and reasonable outcomes. Reliability and norms

establish standards by which one can plan their professional career. Accountability and feedback ensure

that an employee receives pertinent information about their job performance and holds both the

employee and the employer to a standard. Repercussions allow the employer to say to an employee,

“This is the standard you need to meet and here are areas where improvement is required”. Should an

employee fail to meet the standard, given adequate and consistent feedback, an appropriate response is

within the employer’s rights.

A final question remains. If evaluation systems come and, can one system of evaluation properly

account for: different combinations of teachers and students, students forced to work in order to

provide for their family, and demands on students with learning challenges or demands on teachers

when class size increases and they are expected to contribute to the “extra” services in schools? Teacher

response in this study does not believe that is possible.


27

Appendix A: Calgary Board of Education Salary Grid (Effective September 1, 2011)

STEP C D E F

0 48,025 57,660 61,038 64,905

1 48,025 61,036 64,424 68,281

2 50,452 64,424 67,807 71,667

3 52,875 67,807 71,179 75,047

4 55,306 71,179 74,557 78,423

5 57,740 74,557 77,946 81,811

6 60,165 77,946 81,326 85,190

7 62,593 81,326 84,706 88,567

8 65,030 84,706 88,093 91,947

9 & 10 67,210 88,093 91,469 95,336

11 91,695 95,073 98,938


28

Appendix B: Survey Questions

A. Teacher Survey

1. In the past 5 years, I have taught primarily in which type of school or school board

2. For how many total years have you been employed as a full or part time teacher?

3. Select the responses that best describes the development of your Teacher Professional Growth

Plan or (TPGP). Each year I spend...

4. Rate the following as to whether you believe they are an effective method of teacher

assessment.

5. What do you believe is the purpose behind the design of an annual TPGP?

6. Based on your description of the purpose of a TPGP, do you believe that TPGPs effectively

accomplish their purpose? Explain why or why not.

7. After developed, do you receive any feedback about the design of your TPGP? If yes, describe.

8. In general, do you believe that teachers should be evaluated on an annual basis in one form or

another? Explain

9. What is your preferred method(s) for personal teaching development?

10. In your opinion, what are the 3 greatest obstacles to effective teacher evaluation?

B. Administrator Survey

1. In the past 5 years, in which type of school or school board have you been an administrator?

2. For how many total years have you been employed as an administrator?

3. Each year, Alberta teachers are required to complete and submit their Teacher Professional

Growth Plan or TPGP. Select the option below that, based your experience in reviewing TPGPs,

reflect the time teachers spend in the planning and preparation of their TPGPs? Most teachers

spend...

4. Which statement best describes the method by which TPGPs are reviewed in your school?

5. What do you believe is the purpose behind the design of an annual TPGP?

6. Based on your description of the purpose of a TPGP, do you believe that TPGPs effectively

accomplish their purpose? Explain why or why not.

7. In general, do you believe that teachers should be evaluated on an annual basis in one form or

another? Explain

8. Rate the following as to whether you believe they are an effective method of teacher

assessment.

9. Briefly describe the method(s) for teacher evaluation currently used in your school?

10. In your opinion, what are the 3 greatest obstacles to effective teacher evaluation?


29

Appendix C: Ranking of Evaluation Methods

Rank Teacher Responses (Rating Average) Administrator Responses (Rating Average)

1 Self assessment and reflection (1.65) Self assessment and reflection (1.90)

2 Peer Evaluation - common specialty (1.82) Assessment by admin unannounced (2.20)

3 Student survey at end of course (2.10) Assessment by admin pre-arranged (2.30)

4 Assessment by admin pre-arranged (2.32) Student survey at end of course (2.40)

5 Assessment by admin unannounced (2.38) Peer Evaluation - common specialty (2.40)

6 Peer Evaluation - different specialty (2.44) Comparison of student performance (2.60)

7 Teacher Professional Growth Plan (2.70) Peer Evaluation - different specialty (2.70)

8 Comparison of student performance (2.78) Parent evaluation at end of course (2.80)

9 Assessment by external contractor (2.89) Assessment by external contractor (3.00)

10 Parent evaluation at end of course (3.05) Teacher Professional Growth Plan (3.10)


30

Appendix D: Statistical Data Results and Anecdotal Responses from Surveys

A. Teacher Survey Responses

Teacher Survey Question 1 In the past 5 years, I have taught primarily in which type of school or school board Teacher Table 1:

Classification of School Responses (%)

Charter 1.6

Private 16.4

Public 73.8

Separate 8.2

Teacher Graph 1

Teacher Survey Question 2

For how many total years have you been employed as a full or part time teacher?

Teacher Table 2

Teaching Experience (years)

Responses (%)

Less than 1 0.0

1 to 4 1.6

5 to 10 18.0

More than 10 80.3

0

20

40

60

80

Charter Private Public Separate

Re

spo

nse

s (%

)

Classification of School

Location of Teaching Assignment


31

Teacher Graph 2

Teacher Survey Question 3a

Select the responses that best describes the development of your Teacher Professional Growth Plan or

(TPGP). Each year I spend...

Teacher Table 3a

Description of Effort

Responses (%)

Great deal of time with unique goals

6.8

Some time with different goals

45.8

Some time with similar goals

35.6

Little time and the same goals

1.7

Teacher Graph 3a

0

50

100

Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 10 More than 10 R

esp

on

ses

(%)


Years of Teaching Experience

0

10

20

30

40

50

A great deal of time with

unique goals




Re

spo

nse

s (%

)


Teacher Perspective Description of the Effort they put into Development of TPGP


32

Teacher Survey Question 3b

Select the responses that best describes the development of your Teacher Professional Growth Plan or

(TPGP). Each year I spend...

Teacher Table 3b

Effort Compared to Introduction of TPGP

Responses (%)

More time now 7.9

Less time now 46.8

About the same time 37.9

Teacher Graph 3b


Rate the following as to whether you believe they are an effective method of teacher assessment.

Teacher Table 4

Type of Teacher Assessment SA A D SD Rating

Average

Teacher Professional Growth Plan 5.0 36.7 41.7 16.7 2.70

Self assessment and reflection 40.0 55.0 5.0 0.0 1.65

Student survey at end of course 16.7 63.3 13.3 6.7 2.10

Assessment by admin pre-arranged 3.3 66.7 25.0 5.0 2.32

Assessment by admin unannounced 8.3 55.0 26.7 10.0 2.38

Assessment by external contractor 1.8 33.3 38.6 26.3 2.89

Peer Evaluation - different specialty 6.8 49.2 37.3 6.8 2.44

Peer Evaluation - common specialty 30.0 60.0 8.3 1.7 1.82

Comparison of student performance 3.3 43.3 25.0 28.3 2.78

Parent evaluation at end of course 0.0 26.7 41.7 31.7 3.05

SA – Strongly Agree, A – Agree, D – Disagree, SD – Strongly Disagree

0

50

More Time Now

Less Time Now

About the Same

Re

spo

nse

s (%

)

Current Effort in Comparison to TPGP Introduction

The Time Teachers Spend on TPGPs Now in Comparison to When TPGPs Were First

Introduced


33

Teacher Graph 4


In your opinion, what are the 3 greatest obstacles to effective teacher evaluation? Teacher Graph 5

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Re

sult

s p

er

Me

tho

d (

%)

Method of Assessment

Teacher Perspective of Effective Assessment Methods

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Re

sult

s p

er

Ob

stac

le (

%)


Teacher Perspective of Obstacles of Effective Evaluation

Greatest Obstacle

2nd Greatest

3rd Greatest


34

B. Administrator Survey Response Administrator Survey Question 1

In the past 5 years, in which type of school or school board have you been an administrator? Admin Table 1

Classification of School Responses (%)

Charter 0.0

Private 27.3

Public 72.7

Separate 0.0

Admin Graph 1

Administrator Survey Question 2

For how many total years have you been employed as an administrator?

Admin Table 2


Responses (%)

Less than 1 0.0

1 to 4 36.4

5 to 10 27.3

More than 10 36.4

0

20

40

60

80

Charter Private Public Separate

Re

spo

nse

s (%

)

Type of School

Administrator Experience: Type of School


35

Admin Graph 2


Each year, Alberta teachers are required to complete and submit their Teacher Professional Growth Plan

or TPGP. Select the option below that, based your experience in reviewing TPGPs, reflect the time

teachers spend in the planning and preparation of their TPGPs? Most teachers spend...

Admin Table 3


Responses (%)

Great deal of time with unique goals

0.0


27.3


72.7


0.0

Admin Graph 3

0

20

40

Less Than 1 1 to 4 5 to 10 Charter School

Re

spo

nse

s (%

)

Experience (years)

Administrator Experience: Total Years

0 20 40 60 80

A great deal of time with

unique goals




Re

spo

nse

s (%

)

Administrators Perspective

Administrators Perspective: The Effort Teachers put Forth in the Development of their TPGP

More Than 10


36


Which statement best describes the method by which TPGPs are reviewed in your school?

Admin Table 4


Responses (%)

Personal review of all TPGPS within the school

45.4

Another administrator within the school reviews all TPGPs

9.1

Department head reviews all TPGPs within their department

9.1

Teacher group review: common curriculum

9.1

Teacher group Review: cross curriculum

0.0

Due to time constraints there is insufficient time to review all TPGPs

18.2

We spend no time reviewing TPGPs each year

9.1

Admin Graph 4

- 5.0

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Re

sult

s p

er

Ob

stac

le (

%)


TPGP Review Within School


37


Rate the following as to whether you believe they are an effective method of teacher assessment.

Admin Table 5

Type of Teacher Assessment SA A D SD Rating

Average

Teacher Professional Growth Plan 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.10

Self assessment and reflection 20.0 70.0 10.0 0.0 1.90

Student survey at end of course 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.40

Assessment by admin pre-arranged 0.0 70.0 30.0 0.0 2.30

Assessment by admin unannounced 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 2.20

Assessment by external contractor 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 3.00

Peer Evaluation - different specialty 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.70

Peer Evaluation - common specialty 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 2.40

Comparison of student performance 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.60

Parent evaluation at end of course 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.80

SA – Strongly Agree, A – Agree, D – Disagree, SD – Strongly Disagree

Admin Graph 5

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Administrator Perspective of Effective Assessment Methods

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


38


In your opinion, what are the 3 greatest obstacles to effective teacher evaluation? Admin Graph 6

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Re

sult

s p

er

Ob

stac

le (

%)


Administrator Perspective: Obstacles of Effective Evaluation

Greatest Obstacle

2nd Greatest

3rd Greatest


39

References

Azordegan, J., et. al. Diversifying Teacher Compensation. Issue Paper. Education Commission of the

States. December 2005.

Centra, John A., Determining Faculty Effectiveness. Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service for

Personnel Decisions and Improvement. Jossey-Bass Publications. San Francisco, CA.

Centra, J. A. and Theall, M., Assessing the Scholarship of Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, Summer 2001, pg. 31-43.

Centra, John A., Identifying Exemplary Teachers: Evidence from Colleagues, Administrators and Alumni.

New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Spring 1996, p. 51-56.

Centra, John A., The Use of Teaching Portfolio and Student Evaluations for Summative Evaluation.

Journal of Higher Education, Oct. 1994, vol. 65, num. 5, p. 555-570.

Hatry, H. P., and Greiner, J. M., Issues in Teacher Incentive Plans. Urban Institutions, 1984.

Hunashek , E. A., et. al. The Market for Teacher Quality, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research,

Feb. 2005

Hundley, G. and Kim, J., What Factors Affect Teachers’ Perceptions About the Fairness of Performance-

Based Pay. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2005.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education. Journal of Labor Economics, 2008. 26(1), p. 101– 136.

Jacob. B. A. and Lefgren, L., Principals as Agents: Subjective Performance Measurement in Education.

National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2005.

Marzano, Robert (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective

Instruction. Alexandria, VA.

McGreal, Thomas L., Successful Teaching Evaluation. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. 1983.

Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of

Educational Research, 1987, 80(4), 242–247.


40

Milanowski, A., The Relationship Between Teacher Performance Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 2004, 79(4), 33– 53.

Patton, Michael Q., Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Edition 3. Sage Publications, 2001,

Chicago, Ill.

Prince, Cynthia, How Well do Principals’ Evaluations of Teachers Predict Student Achievement

Outcomes? Centre for Educator Compensation Reform, 2006.

Toch,T. and Rothman, R., Avoiding a Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Quality.

LD Online, 2008.

Website Resources

Alberta Education. Teacher, Growth, Supervision and Evaluation Policy. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from


Alberta Teacher Association. Membership, Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/About%20the%20ATA/Membership/Pages/default.aspx

Alberta Teacher Association. About TQS Retrieved February 7, 2012, from

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20Members/Salary%20Benefits%20and%20Pension/TeacherQualificati

onsService/Pages/AboutTQS.aspx

Alberta Teacher Association. Facts About Education, Retrieved February 1, 2012, from

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Teaching%20in%20Alberta/Facts%20About%20Education/Pages/Facts%20a

bout%20Education.aspx

Calgary Board of Education. Teacher Salary Grid. Retrieved January14, 2012, from http://www.cbe.ab.ca/Careers/pdfs/ata_2011_salary_schedule.pdf


http://www.teachers.ab.ca/About%20the%20ATA/Membership/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20Members/Salary%20Benefits%20and%20Pension/TeacherQualificationsService/Pages/AboutTQS.aspx

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20Members/Salary%20Benefits%20and%20Pension/TeacherQualificationsService/Pages/AboutTQS.aspx

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Teaching%20in%20Alberta/Facts%20About%20Education/Pages/Facts%20about%20Education.aspx

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Teaching%20in%20Alberta/Facts%20About%20Education/Pages/Facts%20about%20Education.aspx

http://www.cbe.ab.ca/Careers/pdfs/ata_2011_salary_schedule.pdf

Documents

ASSESSING TEACHER EVALUATION IN ALBERTA By DAVID …