1

Individual Research Paper - Personnel Evaluation Process

Tessa Pryor

Concordia University Irvine

Human Resources EDUA-557

May 1, 2021

Reggie Ingram
 2

Individual Research Paper - Personnel Evaluation Process

Abstract

The history of teacher evaluations exposes a pendulum of ideas that questions the proper

methods to evaluate teachers based on current research. An overarching component in teacher

evaluations that has been argued over time, is whether or not to include student achievement

levels into the evaluation model. It is clear that in order to include student achievement in teacher

evaluations, the statistical analysis of student test scores needs to be very clear and

comprehensive; something that computer programs still struggle with today. However, overtime,

the winning approach to evaluations is to provide teachers with timely feedback and support to

nurture professional growth. In this essay, two evaluation systems were analyzed and compared.

The Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District uses the Continuum of Practice that has several

components to support teacher growth. The School District of Palm Springs County uses three

components, Instructional Practice (Marzano Model), Student Performance (Value-Added

Model), and Professional Practice to evaluate teachers. The models used in both districts have

significant differences, however, they share an overall goal, which is to help teachers succeed.

This in turn promotes student achievement; a goal that all school districts share.
 3

Individual Research Paper - Personnel Evaluation Process

A Brief History

“The only way to evaluate successfully is to determine whether the goal of the evaluation

model is improving teaching quality or assessing the need for teacher dismissal” (Jewell, 2017,

p. 419). Throughout the history of education, researchers have tried to determine the specific

qualities of an effective teacher and, once determined, how they can use those qualities to better

shape the skills of current and new teachers. The ideas of an ideal teacher have changed over the

years and the way in which teachers are evaluated have been reformed due to change in ideals.

The argument over whether or not teachers should be evaluated based on student outcomes, has

always been at the forefront of discussion when determining the best mode of teacher evaluation.

In the recent years, with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESAA) the best types of evaluation are those that allow teachers to self evaluate, offer

immediate and direct feedback of strategies utilized, as well as make professional development

available to those who need differentiated support. Although school districts are narrowing in on

the most effective type of evaluation, there is still room for improvement. Reviewing the history

of education and teacher evaluations can shed light on where our country was and how far it has

come to ensure quality education for all, as well as, foster highly qualified teachers.

School houses have been around since the early 1700’s, but the purpose of education was

widely different than today. Children were placed in schools to learn about the church and

become literate inorder to read and understand the bible. Clergy members were placed in charge

of the schools because they were believed to be the most educated members of society. However,

their understanding of pedagogy was minimal at best and were a poor choice of evaluator for

teachers. The role of the teacher was to teach the curriculum set by the church and maintain order
 4

in the classroom as well as maintain the school grounds. Since clergy did not understand how to

educate children, the “teacher evaluation process in early colonies was primarily a system of

inspection” (Jewell, 2017, p. 372). If a teacher received a negative evaluation, typically that

meant the termination of the teacher rather than offering support for growth and improvement.

The role of clergy in schools came to an end during the Industrial Revolution when urban

areas blossomed due to people immigrating into cities. Small colonies grew and there was a need

for better oversight and organization of schools. The clergy were dismissed and in their place,

supervisors with knowledge and experience of teachers were placed in charge. It was not until

the late 19th century when more formal teacher evaluations were created in order to meet the

needs of the American people. “American citizens abridged teacher influence over academic

content and increased the monitoring and control of their work by others” (Jewell, 2017, p.376).

In the 1930’s two viewpoints of education emerged, one was John Dewey who argued that

schools should center their curriculum around the ideals of democracy so that students leave

schools ready to be productive citizens (Marzano et al, 2011). Frederick Taylor and Edward

Thorndike wanted to focus on schools from a more scientific approach where schools were “in a

sense, factories in which the raw products (children) [were] shaped and fashioned into products

to meet the various demands of life” (Marzano et al., 2011). These two opposing viewpoints had

a great effect on teacher evaluation where the Dewey approach to evaluation was to focus on the

goal of education, which was to produce democratically ready citizens and foster social

development. However, the Taylor approach focused on the teacher’s ability to use strategic

pedagogy to assist student learning. The success of the teacher was determined by student

achievement on standardized tests (Marzano et al., 2011). It was not until after WWII where “the

focus moved away from a scientific approach to schooling and focused on the teacher as an
 5

individual” (Marzano et al., 2011). Teachers were fostered in their professional growth and the

emphasis was placed on their development as well as their emotional needs. Although the shift to

nurture teacher development was in the right direction, evaluations were far from where they are

today. Administrators would visit teachers to observe their performance, however, they did not

follow up with a conference nor did they tend to stay the entire period. Alongside observations,

came an interest to determine if certain teacher characteristics could influence student

performance. Donald Medley and his colleagues researched “correlations between teacher

characteristics and student learning” (McNergney et al., 2010) to which they found there to be no

correlation. Medley also noted there were several reasons not to measure teacher effectiveness by

student outcomes; mostly due to the ineffectiveness of standardized tests. Tests administered

were averaged for students who took a pre and a post test, which would hide differences.

Quickly, it became realized that teacher effectiveness should not be measured solely on student

performance and instead focus on “identifying effective teaching behaviors- those that were

linked to student learning” (McNergney et al., 2010).

In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act (ESEA) was enacted

“to respond to the need to provide instruction for disadvantaged children who were being denied

access to a quality education” (Jewell, 2017, p. 382). This sparked a new era of evaluations for

teachers, in which supervisors were required to meet with teachers prior to observations, plan

goals, analyze performance, and provide feedback in a post observation meeting. This was the

evaluation system of choice for many years and ‘by the 1980’s 90% of school administrators

used some type of clinical supervisory model” (Marzano et al., 2011). In 1984 the RAND study

was performed to determine the effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems from 32 different

districts. Their findings were very insightful as it identified the need for standardized goals in
 6

which to evaluate teachers. There was also a need for teacher involvement to develop the

standards as they felt there was a “lack of principals with the ‘resolve and competence’ to review

teachers accurately” (Jewell, 2017, p. 385). About 10 years after the RAND report, the Danielson

Model was created that encompassed an evaluation system that incorporated all phases of

teaching. Through extensive research, 76 elements of quality teaching were identified and

“broken into four levels of performance (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished)”

(Marzano et al., 2011). Due to the comprehensiveness of the evaluation system, the Danielson

Model became the “professional standard for teacher evaluation” (Jewell, 2017, p. 387).

However, at the start of the 21st century, there was another shift back to evaluating teacher

effectiveness using data from student gains in standardized tests.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), formerly ESEA, was enacted in 2002 in an attempt to

close the education gap. The reform was to hold districts accountable for student achievement,

which meant teachers were at the forefront of the accountability. The U.S. was again measuring

teacher effectiveness from student achievement in standardized tests. In 2011, President Barack

Obama offered schools a waiver to the requirements of NCLB as long as they adopted Common

Core Standards; standards created to help the students prepare for college and careers once out of

high school (Jewell, 2017, p. 389). President Obama also enacted Race to the Top (RTTT), which

financially rewarded states that could integrate “student learning measures into their evaluation

practices” (Jewell, 2017, p. 389). This change was not popular among teachers, nor was the

addition to the program that limited union rights to negotiate evaluation practices. The program

sparked criticism from many different sectors, including the teacher unions who did not feel

student evaluations should be a measure to teacher effectiveness. “On December 10, 2017,

President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) - the latest reauthorization of
 7

the ESEA” (Jewell, 2017, p. 392). Under ESSA teacher evaluation systems no longer needed to

have student achievement associated with teacher effectiveness. The act also reduces federal

involvement in the state education system by allowing “states to design and submit their own

[evaluation systems] to the U.S. Department of Education” (Jewell, 2017, p. 392). Most notably,

this act required states to provide training to teachers who required differentiated support to

mediate their practice as a teacher. This was the first time professional development was a

required step in the teacher evaluation system.

The history of education and teacher evaluations is a bit of a pendulum from unqualified

clergymen evaluating a profession they knew nothing about to identifying teaching as a

profession that needs to be nurtured in order to develop. History and research has shown that

teachers need to be evaluated on many different levels due to the dynamic nature of the

profession. Teachers should not solely be evaluated on student performance as there are too

many factors affecting individual student performances. Instead, teachers should be allowed to

set their own goals based on the teaching standards of their state, be evaluated based on

observations made by qualified and highly trained administrators, and be supported in their

growth through professional development. There is still room for improvement, but if it is the

goal of evaluations to improve teaching quality rather than for the determination of teacher

dismissal, then teacher evaluations are headed in the right direction.

Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District - Evaluation process

Of the various evaluation systems, the CSTP Continuum of Teaching Practice is among

the most common found in California. “While the standards and elements outline the domains of

a teacher’s performance, the Continuum of Practice serves to clarify performance levels by

describing teaching behaviors” (Fresno Unified School District, n.d., p. 3). Fairfield Unified
 8

School District (FSUSD) has adopted this method as their certificated evaluation system. The

FSUSD School Board (2015) believes that, “evaluations shall be used to recognize the

exemplary skills and accomplishments of staff and to identify areas needing improvement.” The

Continuum of Practice evaluation system has many factors to help the school district recognize

teachers for the exemplary behaviors and offer support where identified.

The Continuum of Practice method has many benefits, including research guided

examples of positive teaching behaviors that lead to student success. The Certificate Personnel

Evaluation Form is arranged to focus on the six California Standards for the Teaching Profession

(CSTPs) and elements within each standard that would evaluate teacher performance in that

standard. Administrators use evidence from two formal observations to determine if a teacher

“does not meet CSTP,” is “Progressing Towards CSTP,” or “Meets or Exceeds CSTP” (F-SUTA

Contract, 2016). In addition to formal observations, administrators are encouraged to informally

“drop in” to classes to make quick observations of teacher performance, especially if behaviors

were not observed during formal observations.

FSUSD uses guidelines to determine when a teacher will be evaluated and how the

evaluation process will proceed. Temporary or probationary teachers are evaluated once a year

and all CSTPs are evaluated. Permanent teachers are evaluated every two years as long as their

previous evaluation was determined to be at the “Progressing Towards CSTP” level (F-SUTA

Contract, 2016). They are able to choose two CSTPs to focus on for that year and the

administrator chooses one. Prior to the first observation, there is an option for a pre-observation

meeting where the teacher is encouraged to review the CSTPs and self-reflect on what they are

currently doing to help meet CSTP expectations. They are also encouraged to set goals that will

help them “Meet or Exceed CSTPs” on the evaluation form. The formal observation shall be at
 9

least 30 minutes “and must be followed with a post-conference between the unit member and the

evaluator” (F-SUTA Contract, 2016). Prior to the post-conference meeting, administrators must

provide a written evaluation of the observation, at least five work days prior to the meeting. If at

the end of the second evaluation there are areas that do not meet expectations, the teacher may

request additional observations to remedy the gap. In addition, administrators are able to include

informal observations, of less than 30 minutes, review of lesson plans, report card data and

professional development activities that can all be included on the evaluation form (F-SUTA

Contract, 2016). Although the individual formal observations determine formative assessment of

teacher performance, the final evaluation report is summative, which includes the overall

performance of the teacher based on the CSTPs chosen (F-SUTA Contract, 2016). An interesting

note is per California Education Code, Section 44662, “the summative evaluation of teachers

shall not include the use of comparative student test results as established by standardized tests”

(F-SUTA Contract, 2016). Teachers in California cannot be evaluated based on student

achievement on standardized tests. In addition, at times, teachers may not meet the expectations

of the CSTPs, in this case the administrator may require the teacher “to participate in a program

designed to improve appropriate areas of performance” (FSUSD School Board, 2019) per

Education Code 44664. The Peer Assistance and Review Program (PAR) is intended to provide

peer support to teachers to obtain skills that will help them meet CSTP expectations.

There is a reason the Continuum of Practice is used so frequently, it encourages a

collaborative effort between teachers and administration to collectively develop goals that will

ultimately increase student achievements. This method focuses on developing the teaching

practice and encourages teachers to take ownership of their growth. The goal of the method is to

nurture teachers in their craft, rather than as a tool for dismissal. The California Education Code
 10

44664 requires districts to support struggling staff to improve his or her teaching skills. Fairfield

Unified School District takes this ed code very seriously and makes every effort to provide staff

with professional development throughout the year (California Legislative Information, n.d.). In

addition, the district ensures teachers are aware of the evaluation procedures by providing

training at the beginning of the school year. Overall, the Continuum of Practice is a well received

and researched based method that allows teachers to succeed, which in turn supports the learning

of students.

The School District of Palm Beach County - Evaluation Process

The School District of Palm Beach County (SDPBC) has a vastly different evaluation

system than Fairfield-Suisun Unified, although the goal of the evaluation system is similar. “The

school District of Palm Beach County is committed to providing a world-class education with

excellence and equity to empower each student to reach his or her highest potential with the most

effective staff to foster the knowledge, skills, and ethics required for responsible and productive

careers” (SDPBC, 2020, p. 4). In efforts to achieve their goal they have divided the evaluation

system into three equally weighted components; “Instructional Practice (IP), Student

Performance (SP), and Professional Practice (PP)” (SDPBC, 2020, p. 10). Differing from

FSUSD, each teacher is evaluated every year in all three components. Newly hired teachers are

observed four times throughout the year; twice as informal observations, 20-40 minutes, and

twice as formal observations, 30-55 minutes. Teachers who have taught in the district for three or

more years are only observed twice; one informal and one formal observation (SDPBC, 2020, p.

17). The informal and formal observations are the only time an administrator can identify areas

of growth or support; walkthroughs are not allowed to be used for observation purposes.
 11

SDPBC uses the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model for the Instructional Practice

component of evaluations. This method is well backed by scientific research performed by

Marzano and his colleagues. The model is divided into four domains, each one contains “22

elements that define a knowledge base for teaching and a framework for the systematic

development of expertise” (SDPBC, 2020, p. 12). The rating system is on a 1-4 scale and is used

in each of the three scoring components. A rating score of 1.0 is “unsatisfactory,” 2.0 is

“developing/needs improvement,” 3.0 is “effective,” and 4.0 is “highly developed.” In order to

meet expectations in this model, teachers must demonstrate at least one element from each

domain (SDPBC, 2020, p. 13). As opposed to the Continuum of Practice evaluation method, all

of the domains contain checkboxes for each of the 22 elements. There is not a place for teachers

to self-reflect where they believe they are in the model, nor is there a place for the evaluator to

make notes on the behavior they observed.

In efforts to make up for the lack of self-reflection in the Marzano Teacher Evaluation

Model, SDPBC has incorporated another component to the evaluation procedure, which is based

on Deliberate Practice that allows teachers to self-reflect. “Deliberate practice is a way for

teachers to grow their expertise through a series of planned action steps, reflections and a

collaboration” (SDPBC, 2020, p. 17). In this area, teachers are encouraged to set goals for

themselves, conduct focused practice where they observe other teachers, receive and give

immediate feedback from fellow colleagues and administrators, as well as receive monitored

progress in their advancements towards their yearly goal. Again, certificated staff are evaluated

on a 1-4 scale based on observations from the administrative staff on the progress of their goal.

Lastly, the third component of the evaluation is a Value-Added Model (VAM) of student

performance. This significantly differs from FSUSD where it is against ed code to include
 12

student performance when evaluating teachers. The VAM used by SDPBC measures teacher

performance based on the number of students who meet or exceed expectations set by the Florida

Department of Education (SDPBC, 2020, p. 18). This model also uses a 1-4 scale based on the

percentage of students under the teacher’s authority for that school year. All three scores are then

summed for the summative assessment at the end of the year. The teacher will then receive an

overall score of 1-4 for the year. If the teacher receives a 1 in any of the areas, several plans are

set in place for the support and improvement of that teacher.

SDPBC has a PAR program, similar to that of FSUSD. However, in addition, SDPBC

also has a plan set in place for administrators to work with individual teachers on components

that need improvement. The plan if a teacher has not met expectations in an area after two

observations, SDPBC will conduct a series of three support meetings to focus on those areas.

Following each support meeting, the administrator will perform either an informal or formal

observation. After the third meeting, three options are possible: the teacher meets the

expectations and the plan is terminated, the Instructional Practice Score of the teacher stays as it

is and a summative score is given, or the individual continues support until the standards are met.

(Collective Bargaining Agreement SDPBC and CTA, 2017, p. 33). Overall, the collection of these

three evaluation systems that SDPBC utilizes each have their merits. However, there are some

drawbacks when including student achievement scores in teacher evaluations.

Analysis of FSUSD and SDPBC Evaluation Systems

The research shows that both the Continuum of Practice and the Marzano evaluation

models are great tools to analyze teacher performance and promote student achievement.

However, one main drawback to the Marzano evaluation model is the lack of specific guidelines

for providing support for teacher improvement. It also lacks areas where teachers can self-reflect
 13

and analyze where they fall in the domains. Administrators are also left to just check boxes for

each of the elements under the domains; it leaves little space for individualized feedback on

teacher performance. The Continuum of Practice does a great job allowing teachers to self-reflect

prior to being observed and allows plenty of opportunity for administrators to make notes on

individual teacher behavior as it supports each of the CSTPs. In addition, another drawback to

the evaluation system at SDPBC is their inability to include observations outside of the

formal/informal classroom observations. Teaching is a very dynamic profession and some of the

evidence for masterly level teaching happens outside of the classroom. For example, teacher

leaders often sit on boards that develop curriculum and other factors affecting student

achievement. These roles should be included in teacher evaluations to show teacher involvement

and growth. The Continuum of Practice allows administrators to make these out-of-classroom

observations and note them on the evaluation form.

An area where the SDPBC excels is their Professional Practice component that allows for

teachers to create a yearly goal for themselves. During this process, teachers are allowed to

observe one another and provide feedback based on their observations. This type of method is a

wonderful way for teachers to grow based on learning from one another. The Continuum of

Practice does not have a component that allows for this type of collaboration. Lastly, the one

concerning component of SDPBC is their inclusion of student performance on teacher

evaluations. There has been a lot of research to indicate that VAM has several statistical

problems when measuring student achievement, including, resulting in a lower score for a great

teacher, or vice versa. Due to union involvement, California has made including student

achievement in teacher evaluations against education code. This is due to the inability of VAM to

adequately account for the multitude of factors affecting student achievement. Based on the
 14

similarities and differences between these two evaluation models, the Continuum of Practice

stands ahead. However, it is not perfect and there is room for improvement, especially in terms

of peer evaluations and collaboration. There does not seem to be one model that fits all districts,

but it is the role of the district to select a model that will support teacher development as well as

foster student achievement at all levels.

 15

References

Basileo, L., & Toth, M. (2019). A State Level Analysis of the Marzano Teacher

Evaluation Model: Predicting Teacher Value-Added Measures with Observation

Scores. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 24(6), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.7275/cc5b-6j43

California Legislative Information. (n.d.). Codes Display Text. Retrieved April 24, 2021,

from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?

lawCode=EDC&division=3.&title=2.&part=25.&chapter=3.&article=11.

Collective Bargaining Agreement District of Palm Beach and CTA. (2017). The School

District of Palm Beach County.

https://www.palmbeachschools.org/careers/compensation_and_job_information/c

ollective_bargaining_agreements/palm_beach_county_classroom_teachers_associ

ation

Fresno Unified School District. (n.d.). Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. Nctq.Org.

Retrieved April 24, 2021, from

https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher-Evaluation-Handbook

FSUSD School Board. (2019, December 12). FSUSD Board Policy Manual.

Simbli.Eboardsolutions.Com.

https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Policy/ViewPolicy.aspx?S=36030826&revid=

quzLrSle1ZGDX4ClKNx1ow==
 16

F-SUTA Contract. (2016, July). Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Bf5Q1E7T9qsgbAdAJJAMYeSQzz1pJqe/view

Jewell, J. (2017). FROM INSPECTION, SUPERVISION, AND OBSERVATION TO

VALUE-ADDED EVALUATION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. TEACHER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. Drake Law Review, 65(2), 363–419.

https://lawreviewdrake.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/jewell-final.pdf

Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011, May). A Brief History of Supervision

and Evaluation. Http://Www.Ascd.Org/Publications/Books/110019/Chapters

/A-Brief-History-of-Supervision-and-Evaluation.Aspx.

McNergney, R., Imig, S., & Pearlman, M. (2010). Teacher Evaluation - OVERVIEW,

METHODS. Teachers, Teaching, Student, and Education - StateUniversity.Com.

https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2482/Teacher-Evaluation.html

National Education Association. (2020, June 24). Teacher Evaluations under ESSA |

NEA. Nea.Org. https://www.nea.org/resource-library

/teacher-evaluations-under-essa

School District of Palm Beach County. (2020). 2020-2021 Instructional Evaluation

System.palmbeachschools.org.https://www.palmbeachschools.org/UserFiles/Serve

rs/Server_270532/File/About%20Us/District%20and%20Annual%20Reports/Eva

luation%20State%20Plans/Instructional_Evaluation_System_State_Plan_FY21.p

df