Dance Education in Practice

ISSN: 2373-4833 (Print) 2373-4841 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udep20

Fair and Balanced Teacher Evaluation for Dance

Lynn Monson

To cite this article: Lynn Monson (2015) Fair and Balanced Teacher Evaluation for Dance,
Dance Education in Practice, 1:2, 20-27, DOI: 10.1080/23734833.2015.1035171

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23734833.2015.1035171

Published online: 24 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udep20

Download by: [George Mason University] Date: 21 March 2016, At: 18:53
 FAIR AND
BALANCED
Teacher Evaluation
for Dance
Lynn Monson
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016

Arizona Dance Education Organization (AzDEO) and

National Dance Education Organization (NDEO)

ABSTRACT
Teacher evaluation has become an important issue in education, and it has become a
critical issue for dance educators. The implementation of mandates from federal and
state requirements and the general lack of knowledge administrators possess about
dance have raised questions of fairness and balance of teacher evaluation for dance
educators. This article offers principles, frameworks, components, and advocacy
information for teacher evaluations for dance. The information and resources outlined
can be used by dance educators to inform, develop, implement, and advocate for fair
and balanced teacher evaluations for dance at the state, district, and school level.

T
wo occurrences have greatly influenced evalua-
tions for all teachers. The first is the Race to the
Top grant1 (U.S. Department of Education 2009),
and its criterion that states must ensure teacher
effectiveness. The second is the option that states can
seek a No Child Left Behind (NCLB)2 waiver, provid-
ing flexibility in meeting NCLB requirements, but re-
quiring states to demonstrate progress on improving
teacher evaluations and supporting teacher effectiveness
(U.S. Department of Education 2012). As a result, states
hastened to establish more effective teacher evaluations.
You can find each state’s teacher evaluation requirements
in State of the States 2013 Connect the Dots: Using Evalua-
tions of Teacher Effectiveness to Inform Policy and Practice
(Doherty and Jacobs 2013). The implementation of these
requirements has rendered teacher evaluation a critical is-
sue for dance.
K–12 dance educators should be evaluated as any other
teacher. I cannot think of any profession that does not eval-
uate their personnel. Evaluation is a powerful tool for im-
provement and professional growth. We need to know how
all teachers, novice to experienced, are doing so they can
be provided with the support they need. For those teach-
ers who do not show improvement after assistance, a fair
mechanism for their dismissal must be in place. Fair and
balanced evaluation systems must be established for dance.
Across states and districts, this has not always been the case.
We must advocate and insist on evaluations that are based
on meaningful dance content and how we teach it, not on
measures that are unrelated to dance content and pedagogy.
TEACHER EVALUATION PRINCIPLES
FOR DANCE
The first step to develop fair and balanced teacher evalu-
ation models is to determine guiding principles, or a
framework. We can turn to some of the work already done.
Darling-Hammond (2014) outlined the necessary compo-
nents for systematic high-quality teacher evaluations. The

20 Dance Education in Practice

 components she deemed necessary include not only
student learning standards and assessments, but also
common statewide standards for teaching related to
student learning. There must be performance-based as-
sessments based on those standards that guide teacher
preparation and licensing and certification. The local
evaluation must be aligned to those standards and in-
clude multiple measures. Equally important for a high-
quality evaluation system are properly trained evalua-
tors, support structures for teachers and for making fair
decisions concerning personnel, and professional de-
velopment that supports teaching and learning. Based
on these criteria, we can outline some major principles
for fair and balanced teacher evaluations for dance:
® Dance educators must be evaluated on a variety
of evidences derived from the content of dance
that is taught to student learning that is directly
related to the content, knowledge, and skills that
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016
are taught and the context in which they are
taught. According to Wolfe (2012), “Teachers
should be evaluated based on their performance
in their own subject areas, using a range of crite-
ria, including observations, peer reviews, parental
or student input, self-evaluation and analysis of
agreed-on student learning evidence.”
® Evaluation must be linked to improvement of
teaching and learning from teacher preparation
throughout a teacher’s career and based on pro-
fessional teaching standards for dance (Darling-
Hammond 2014).
Figure 1. Three-legged stool for building a foundation for dance teacher assessment.
Volume 1 w Number 2 w 2015
® Evaluators must be trained in and have an adequate
knowledge of their state and national dance standards,
of the content, pedagogy, and assessments for dance
and how they are implemented in the classroom as
well as in the evaluation system and methods used.
® School administration and dance educators must work
together to develop a clear curriculum that aligns with
state and national standards and includes comprehen-
sive dance assessments and cohesive reporting prac-
tices in dance. These assessments should measure stu-
dents’ knowledge and skills, and more important, how
they apply knowledge and skills in new and creative
ways (Benson et al. 2011).
® There must be equitable ways to dismiss ineffective
teachers after providing training, mentoring, and as-
sistance.
BUILDING BLOCKS FOR TEACHER EVALUATION
With the principles in place, the next step is to create a
foundation, the building blocks on which to develop the
models. Darling-Hammond (2014) identified six elements
on which to build a teacher evaluation system. Of those six,
three seem particularly important for building a founda-
tion, a three-legged stool: professional teaching standards,
student learning standards, and performance-based assess-
ments for teacher preparation and licensing (see Figure 1).
Fortunately, these building blocks are in place or are in de-
velopment for dance. In 2005, the National Dance Educa-
tion Organization (NDEO) first published (with updates in
21
 2007 and 2009) the Professional
Teaching Standards for Dance
The selected Arts (NDEO 2009). As one of
the building blocks, the Profes-
measures for sional Teaching Standards for
Dance Arts provide the estab-
evaluation lished knowledge and skills that
dance educators should possess.
must be These standards are aligned and
similar to professional teaching
technically standards in other disciplines but
provide the specificity needed for
sound, dance.
Released in June 2014, the
fair and National Core Arts Standards for
Dance (National Coalition for
defensible. Core Arts Standards 2014) pro-
vide a guide for what teachers
present in the classroom. They
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016
include cornerstone assessments
for assessing student learning
in dance as well as valid and reliable assessments to show
student achievement that can be used as one measure to
evaluate dance educators. Aligned to the Dance Entry Level
Teacher Assessment (DELTA) and the Professional Teach-
ing Standards for Dance Arts, the National Core Arts Stan-
dards link curriculum, assessment, and student learning to
how teachers entering the teaching field in dance are as-
sessed for readiness and to the teaching standards that will
guide them throughout their career.
NDEO is currently developing the DELTA (NDEO 2013),
an entry-level assessment for dance educators that will serve
as a national certification test that particular states can
adopt as part of their certifying process for dance teachers.
As such, it serves as a foundation for teacher evaluation, and
part of an integrated and well-designed teacher evaluation
system that begins with preparing our teachers. DELTA will
assess baseline competencies of our entering dance educa-
tors and evaluate their readiness to enter the field, making
the link to professional licensing and certification. DELTA
is aligned with the National Core Arts Standards for Dance
and the NDEO Professional Teaching Standards for Dance
Arts.
At the state level, a few states have developed their own
version of Professional Teaching Standards for dance, and
all but one state have student learning dance standards.
Certification requirements vary by state (see Arts Education
Partnership 2014).
A FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER EVALUATION
With the foundational aspects determined, the next step is
to develop the model. What do we need to determine to
establish a successful model? At NDEO’s Special Topics
Conference, “Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher
Evaluation for K-12 Dance Educators,” Stanley Rabinowitz
22
(2014), former Senior Program Director of WestEd’s As-
sessment & Standards Development Services, defined a best
practice model: “Purposeful mix of reliable, valid, and fair
outcome data and educational practices indicators.” He also
presented a framework for teacher evaluation, outlining the
characteristics a model should have:
®® The desired outcomes for the evaluation must be iden-
tified, along with defined student outcomes, and what
constitutes best practice for dance.
®® The selected measures for evaluation must be techni-
cally sound, fair, and defensible.
®® Teacher involvement in and support for the develop-
ment of the teacher evaluation model is an important
element.
®® Finally, the model must include professional develop-
ment for all teachers, and needed mentoring before
sanctions are implemented (Rabinowitz 2014).
Rabonowitz provided recommendations to consider be-
fore creating a model. Although it is important to identify
multiple measures to incorporate and the student data that
are available and viable, it is also crucial to consider the
value versus the burden of implementing the model and the
context. No model will work for all situations and locales
(Rabinowitz 2014). Other models have been developed that
dance can use as references. The models of Danielson (n.d.)
and Marzano (Carbaugh, Marzano, and Toth 2013) are well-
known and often used. Both outline similar components on
which teachers are evaluated, such as planning and prepa-
ration, classroom environment, strategies, and professional-
ism. They both align to Rabinowitz’s tenets of valid, defen-
sible, and fair measures of educator effectiveness, and to the
Professional Teaching Standards for Dance Arts.
There are states that have made progress in developing
frameworks from which we can learn. At the 2014 NDEO
Teacher Evaluation conference (photo on page 24), Colo-
rado, Delaware, and Arizona frameworks were shared with
participants (Tuttle, Hansen, and Gates 2014). These mod-
els include some of the principles and foundations high-
lighted earlier: an aligned system, stakeholders involved in
the process, state standards for student achievement, mul-
tiple measures, support for teachers, trained evaluators, and
student assessments in dance that can be validated, are rig-
orous, and are comparable across classrooms and grades.
COMPONENTS OF TEACHER
EVALUATION MODELS
Valid and reliable measurements of student achievement
are a major cornerstone of a comprehensive teacher evalua-
tion system. In most states and districts, dance does not have
what are considered valid and reliable student assessments
to demonstrate student achievement and growth that can
be used to meet the student achievement requirement in
teacher evaluations. Nontested subject areas were addressed
Dance Education in Practice
 in Race to the Top in the following manner: “For non-tested ®® A focus on teachers’ con-
grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learn- tent knowledge of the sub-
ing and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and
end-of-course tests” (U.S. Department of Education 2009b).
ject they teach.
®® Allowance for active learn- Dance
The question became what achievement data are available
and should be used for dance. In the absence of a state-level
ing with a focus on the
classroom. educators
must be
test, states mandated that student test scores on state-level ®® Correlation to other learn-
ELA and math tests would be used for the student achieve- ing activities.
®® Occurrence over a span of
provided with
ment data. Dance educators and organizations voiced their
concerns with this criterion. It certainly is not a valid and time (U.S. Department of
reliable measurement of student achievement in dance or Education 2009a).
any other nontested subject. The issue is summarized in a professional
paraphrased quote of American writer and journalist H. L. Dance educators must be pro-
Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is a solution vided with professional develop- development
that is simple, neat, and wrong.”3 Certainly this is the case if ment that increases their knowl-
student test scores on state-level ELA and math tests are used edge and effectiveness at all that increases
for teacher evaluation in dance. stages of their careers. As Rabi-
Therefore, it is imperative that states, districts, and nowitz (2014) shared, we should their
schools create and implement comprehensive student as- provide support before sanctions
knowledge
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016

sessments for dance (including ones that are performance
based) that will be deemed valid and reliable, and that
meet the federal requirement of being “rigorous and com-
parable across classrooms” (U.S. Department of Education
2009b).
Fortunately, this is changing both nationally and locally.
The National Core Arts Standards for Dance include Model
Cornerstone Assessments, modeled on the “Cornerstone
Tasks” of McTighe and Wiggins 2011). They:
®® Are curriculum embedded.
®® Establish authentic contexts for performance.
®® Assess understanding.
®® Integrate twenty-first-century skills.
®® Evaluate performance with established rubrics.
®® Engage students in meaningful learning while encour-
aging the best teaching.
They serve as a model for any state, district, or school devel-
oping valid and reliable assessments. At the state and local
level, there are examples of valid, reliable, and comprehen-
sive student assessments that meet the federal requirements.
Washington State, Colorado, Florida, and Tennessee are
examples, along with the Peoria district in Arizona.4 These
assessments demonstrate alignment to standards and assess
not only knowledge and skills in dance, but develop a deep
understanding of concepts through higher order thinking.
Although this represents an impressive beginning, more
needs to be developed, and we need to share what has al-
ready been developed and employed.
Two other important components that should be consid-
ered for a comprehensive teacher evaluation system are pro-
fessional development and observation. According to the
Teacher Quality Under NCLB Final Report, “NCLB makes
professional development a key strategy for improving
teachers’ knowledge and skills” (U.S. Department of Educa-
tion 2009a, 89). Characteristics of high-quality professional
development include the following:
for less effective teachers, and as
Doherty and Jacobs (2013) sug-
gested, we should strive to help and
good teachers become great.
Observation is a powerful com- effectiveness
ponent if done correctly, and an
assessment tool that is natural for
dance educators. Dance educa-
at all stages
tors use observation in every class
to assess their students. Some
of their
factors to consider concerning
observations such as timing of
careers.
observations, requirements for
feedback, and the observation in-
strument are outlined in Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness:
State Requirements for Classroom Observations (Reform Support
Network n.d.). Most important, the observation must gener-
ate actionable feedback and reliable data for teacher effec-
tiveness, and be done by an evaluator knowledgeable about
dance, which is not the norm. States vary on the observation
protocols. It is important that dance educators understand
their state’s and district’s policies.5
EDUCATE ADMINISTRATORS AND
CHANGE POLICY
An obstacle for implementing the kind of evaluations just
described is the lack of knowledge and understanding that
administrators and evaluators have concerning dance con-
cepts, content, and pedagogy. At NDEO’s K–12 Teacher
Evaluation conference, Wakamatsu (2014) summarized this
key issue regarding teacher evaluation for dance: very little
exposure to and experience in dance among those most
likely to evaluate dance educators, and a correspondingly
poor understanding of dance core curriculum and dance
standards. This lack of understanding and knowledge will
ultimately affect the kind of professional development and

Volume 1 w Number 2 w 2015 23

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016

Participants at the NDEO Special Topic Conference 2014, Charting the Course: Teacher Evaluation for K-12 Dance Educators. Photographer: Eugene Joseph.

We need to support the dance educator

will receive (Wakamatsu 2014).
der thinking skills and twenty-first-century skills, and how
they link to other disciplines. Teachers need to discuss these
define and Teachers must take the lead
and educate their administra-
tenets with their administrators and help them understand
what they do in the classroom. Educating administrators and
articulate the tors about dance. We must ad-
vocate for and insist that only
evaluators can help ensure that when they walk into a dance
classroom, they better understand the pedagogy of dance
attributes of personnel trained in dance
and evaluation methods evalu-
and what they observe.
We need to define and articulate the attributes of an ef-
an effective ate dance teachers. Before we
can effectively educate and
fective dance educator and the criteria for measuring the
effectiveness of dance educators. A critical component for
dance advocate for fair and balanced
teacher evaluations, we need
effective implementation and sustainability of teacher eval-
uation systems is to define and agree on what constitutes
educator and to formulate what administra-
tors and evaluators need to
good teaching practice. “This common understanding is
the basis for high-quality evaluation systems that can drive
the criteria for know about dance. This in-
cludes the dance standards
professional growth” (Minnici 2014). At the 2014 NDEO
K–12 Teacher Evaluation Conference, Habel (2014) tack-
measuring the addressed, the concepts and
knowledge taught, and how
led the issue of what an effective teacher looks like. She
proposed, and most dance educators would agree, that
effectiveness they align to those standards. It
comprises how the assessments
an effective dance educator should possess the following
attributes:
of dance administered link to teaching
and learning. It addresses how ®® Deep content knowledge.

educators. the concepts and knowledge

taught incorporate higher or-
®® Strong discipline-specific pedagogical skills.
®® A grasp of effective general teaching methodologies.

24 Dance Education in Practice

 With this information, we are ®® Teacher evaluation systems that are equitable, bal-
ready to educate and inform ad- anced, and comprehensive, thereby supporting

However, ministrators and evaluators con-

cerning good teaching practice
teacher growth and student learning.
®® Valid and reliable assessments that show student

merely and teacher effectiveness for

dance.
achievement and growth.
®® Fair teacher evaluations that are comparable to those

educating our At the 2014 NDEO K–12 in other disciplines but respect the distinctiveness and
Teacher Evaluation conference, value of dance as a discipline.
®® Increased support for professional growth and profes-
administrators Wakamatsu (2014) shared some
strategies for educating admin- sional standing.
®® Increased understanding by administrators, parents,
and istrators and evaluators. She
recommended learning your and legislators.
®® A tool for advocacy that demonstrates the rigor and
evaluators principal’s perception of dance.
Armed with that knowledge, you importance of dance to a comprehensive education.
®® Dance learning data and evidence that might develop
might not
can target information and strat-
egies to better influence your larger understandings of what “student achievement”
might actually encompass and allow new approaches
be enough.
administrator. She emphasized
being visible, proactive, and a to effective classroom instruction and student growth
team player. One way to accom- (Benson et al. 2011).
We must use
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016

plish this is by inviting admin-

istrators, legislators, and board Although progress has been made, the work is certainly
our collective members to performances, audi- not complete. We must continue to work, fight, and advo-
tions, and field trips, and also in- cate for teacher evaluation systems that truly assess teacher
knowledge, viting administrators and teach- effectiveness for student learning in dance. Our students
ers to perform in your annual and teachers deserve no less.
resources, concert. This not only informs
them about dance, but also has
and strategies them experience it for a better NOTES
to advocate
understanding. Another idea is
to enlist help from colleagues in 1. The Race to the Top fund We must
continue to
the arts. Her last recommenda- provides competitive grants
for policy tion was to be a friendly and po- to reward and encourage
states to foster education
change.
lite squeaky wheel (Wakamatsu
2014). reform and innovation in work, fight
U.S. schools.
However, merely educating
our administrators and evalua- 2. The No Child Left Behind and advocate
Act of 2001 (NCLB) is a
tors might not be enough. We
must use our collective knowl- reauthorization of the El- for teacher
ementary and Secondary
edge, resources, and strategies to advocate for policy change.
Wolfe (2012) wrote that the Association for Supervision and Education Act that sup-
ports standards-based edu-
evaluation
Curriculum worked with a coalition of organizations on a
set of recommendations for federal policymakers on teacher cation reform based on the
principle that setting high
systems that
evaluation. These recommendations, such as evidence di-
rectly attributable to what is taught and curricula based on standards and establishing
measurable goals will im-
truly assess
standards, are aligned with the components of a fair and
balanced teacher evaluation system, and can be used as talk-
prove individual student
achievement.
teacher
ing points to advocate for a fair and balanced system and to
change policy.
3. In the Preliminary Recom-
mendations for the Tennes-
effectiveness
see Growth Measures for
Non-Tested Subjects and for student
FINAL THOUGHTS grades, this H. L. Mencken
quote was paraphrased to learning in
By working together and across disciplines, staying informed
and involved, dance educators can affect teacher evaluation
make a point (Davison et
al. n.d.). dance.
policy. The benefits and results for dance and dance educa- 4. Information on the work
tors are too important to ignore: these states and districts

Volume 1 w Number 2 w 2015 25

 have done can be found on their respective Web sites
(with the exception of the Peoria district) and links
can be found in the references.
5. 
The Race to the Top at a Glance: Evaluations of
Teacher Effectiveness: State Requirements for Class-
room Observations (Reform Support Network n.d.)
lists state policies regarding observations.
REFERENCES
Arnaudova, A., and K. Rayl. 2014. Beyond the test: Mentoring for artistic
engagement. http://prezi.com/811ukbda1zij/?utm_campaign=
share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share (accessed August 14,
2014)
Arts Education Partnership. 2014. State comparisons. http://
www.aep-arts.org/research-policy/artscan/artscan-state-
comparisons/ (accessed August 14, 2014).
Benson, R., L. Monson, K. Preston, R. Castillo, and N. Wang. 2011.
Measures of effectiveness for Arizona’s arts educators: Arizona Alli-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016
ance for Arts Education. https://drive.google.com/folderview?
id=0B0ZpaJBI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed
August 2, 2014).
Carbaugh, B., R. Marzano, and M. Toth. 2013. Hierarchical evalu-
ation & growth system common language, common goals. West
Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences Marzano Center. http://
www.marzanocenter.com/files/MarzanoCenter-Hierarchical-
Evaluation-20130529.pdf (accessed August 6, 2014).
Center for Fine Arts Education. n.d. RTTT performing fine arts
assessment project. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Fine Arts
Education. http://cfaefl.org/assessmentproject/InnerPage.
aspx?ID=1 (accessed August 10, 2014).
Colorado Department of Education. 2012. Content collaboratives.
Denver: Colorado Department of Education. http://www.cde.
state.co.us/contentcollaboratives (accessed August 5, 2014).
———. n.d. Resource bank: Assessments. Denver: Colorado Depart-
ment of Education. http://www.coloradoplc.org/assessment
(accessed August 5, 2014).
Danielson, C. n.d. The framework. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.
http://danielsongroup.org/download/?download=448 (ac-
cessed August 8, 2014).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014, Spring). One piece of the whole:
Teacher evaluation as part of a comprehensive system for
teaching and learning. American Educator. http://www.aft.org/
newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2014/darling-hammond.
cfm (accessed August 4, 2014).
Davison, D., J. Crosswhite, J. Denton, A. Galbraith, F. Galetovic,
S. Ham, C. Paulo, and K. Wilson. n.d. Tennessee first to the top:
Tennessee growth measures for non-tested subjects and grades pre-
liminary recommendations. Nashville: Tennessee Department of
Education. http://etsboa.org/wp-content/uploads/Fine-Arts-
Recommendations.pdf (accessed August 10, 2014).
Doherty, K. M., and S. Jacobs. 2013. State of the states 2013 connect
the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy
and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher
Quality. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_
2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluations_NCTQ_Report (accessed
August 1, 2014).
Habel, S. 2014. Expectations in dance education: Student perfor-
mance as a reflection of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented
at the NDEO Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher
26
Evaluation for K–12 Dance Educators conference, Albuquer-
que, NM. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0ZpaJ
BI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed August 4,
2014).
Hofmeister, J. 2014. Evaluating the Colorado dance educator. Pa-
per presented at the NDEO Charting the Course: Approaches
to Teacher Evaluation for K–12 Dance Educators conference,
Albuquerque, NM. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id
=0B0ZpaJBI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed
August 4, 2014).
McTighe, J., and G. Wiggins. 2011. Cornerstone tasks. https://nccas.
wikispaces.com/file/view/McTighe+on+Cornerstone+Tasks.
pdf (accessed August 2, 2014).
Minnici, A. 2014. The mind shift in teacher evaluation: where we
stand-and where we need to go. American Educator. https://
www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2014/minnici.
cfm (accessed August 12, 2014).
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. 2014. National Core Arts
Standards. http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ (accessed
August 8, 2014).
National Dance Education Organization (NDEO). 2009. Profes-
sional teaching standards for dance arts and portfolio checklist. www.
ndeo.org/ptsda (accessed August 8, 2014).
———.2013. Dance Entry Level Teacher’s Assessment (DELTA) Project.
http://www.ndeo.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=
893257&module_id=123848 (accessed August 10, 2014).
Rabinowitz, S. 2014. Charting the course: Approaches to teacher
evaluation for K–12 dance educators. Paper presented at the
NDEO Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher Evalu-
ation for K–12 Dance Educators conference, Albuquerque,
NM. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0ZpaJBI9xe
0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed August 4, 2014).
Reform Support Network. n.d. Race to the Top at a glance: Evalu-
ations of teacher effectiveness: State requirements for class-
room observations. http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/
implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/evaluations-teacher-
effectiveness.pdf (accessed August 8, 2014).
State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruc-
tion. 2008. The arts: OSPI-developed performance assessments for the
arts. Olympia: State of Washington Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction. http://www.k12.wa.us/Arts/Performance
Assessments/default.aspx (accessed August 8, 2014).
Tennessee Department of Education. 2011. TN fine arts growth
measures system appendix: Student growth chart. http://
team-tn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fine-Arts-
Scoring-Guide.pdf (accessed August 5, 2014).
———. n.d. Fine arts portfolio model: A new path to measuring growth in
traditionally non-tested grades and subjects. http://team-tn.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fine-Arts-Presentation.pdf
(accessed August 5, 2014).
Tennessee FTTT, MCS Curriculum and Instruction, MCS Teacher
Effectiveness Initiative. 2011. TN arts growth measures system.
Memphis, TN: Memphis City Schools. http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetop/communities/tle2-tn-arts-system.pdf
(accessed August 6, 2014).
Tennessee State Board of Education. 2013. Teacher and princi-
pal evaluation policy. http://www.tn.gov/sbe/Policies/5.
201_Teacher_and_Principal_Evaluation_Policy_11-5-13.pdf
(accessed August 6, 2014).
Tuttle, L., D. Hansen, and K. Gates. 2014. How states are tackling the
issue of teacher evaluation for arts disciplines. Paper presented
Dance Education in Practice
 at the NDEO Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher
Evaluation for K–12 Dance Educators conference, Albuquer-
que, NM. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0Zpa
JBI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed August 4,
2014).
U.S. Department of Education. 2009a. State and local implementa-
tion of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VIII—Teacher
quality under NCLB: Final report. http://www2.ed.gov/
rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/index.html (accessed Au-
gust 2, 2014).
———. 2009b. Race to the Top program executive summary.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-
summary.pdf (accessed August 1, 2014).
———. 2012. ESEA flexibility review guidance. www.ed.gov/sites/
default/files/review-guidance.doc (accessed August 1, 2014).
Wakamatsu, K. 2014. Dance literacy for the administrator. Paper pre-
sented at the NDEO Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher
Evaluation for K–12 Dance Educators conference, Albuquer-
que, NM. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0Zpa
JBI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=sharing (accessed August 4,
2014).
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 18:53 21 March 2016
Wolfe, M. 2012. Teacher evaluation for effectiveness. The Whole
Child Blog November 6. http://www.wholechildeducation.
org/blog/teacher-evaluation-for-effectiveness (accessed Au-
gust 3, 2014).
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Arnaudova, A., and K. Rayl. 2014. Beyond the test: mentoring for artistic
engagement. http://prezi.com/81lukbda1zij/?utm_campaign=
share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share (accessed August 14,
2014).
Center for Fine Arts Education. (n.d.). RTTT performing fine arts
assessment project. Center for Fine Arts Education. http://cfaefl.
org/assessmentproject/InnerPage.aspx?ID=1 (Accessed Au-
gust 10, 2014).
Volume 1 w Number 2 w 2015
Colorado Department of Education. (2012). Content collaboratives.
Colorado Department of Education. http://www.cde.state.co.us/
contentcollaboratives (Accessed August 5, 2014).
Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Resource bank: assess-
ments. Colorado Department of Education http://www.colorado-
plc.org/assessment (Accessed August 5, 2014).
Hofmeister, J. (2014, May). Evaluating the Colorado dance educa-
tor. NDEO’s Charting the Course: Approaches to Teacher Evaluation
for K-12 Dance Educators conference. https://drive.google.com/
folderview?id=0B0ZpaJBI9xe0N0trc0xWYkZzQjg&usp=shar
ing (Accessed August 4, 2014).
State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruc-
tion. (2008) The Arts: OSPI-developed performance assessments
for the arts. http://www.k12.wa.us/Arts/PerformanceAssess-
ments/default.aspx (Accessed August 8, 2014).
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Fine arts portfolio model:
A new path to measuring growth in traditionally non-tested grades and
subjects. http://team-tn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
Fine-Arts-Presentation.pdf (Accessed August 5, 2014).
Tennessee Department of Education. (2011). TN fine arts growth
measures system appendix: student growth chart. http://team-tn.
org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fine-Arts-Scoring-Guide.
pdf (Accessed August 5, 2014).
Tennessee FTTT, MCS Curriculum and Instruction, MCS Teacher
Effectiveness Initiative. (2011). TN arts growth measures system.
Memphis City Schools. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/race-
tothetop/communities/tle2-tn-arts-system.pdf (Accessed Au-
gust 6, 2014).
Tennessee State Board of Education. (2013, October). Teacher and
principal evaluation policy. http://www.tn.gov/sbe/Policies/
5.201_Teacher_and_Principal_Evaluation_Policy_11-5-13.pdf
(Accessed August 6, 2014).
Address correspondence to Lynn Monson, 641 N. Elm Street, Chandler, AZ
85226. E-mail: lmonson@cox.net
27