xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19959999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00033
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 3, no. 4 (February 15, 1995).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c February 15, 1995
State actions for personnel evaluations : analysis of reform policies, 1983-1992 / Carol B. Furtwengler.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 3issue 4series Year mods:caption 19951995Month February2Day 1515mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1995-02-15
1 of 27 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 3 Number 4February 15, 1995ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass,Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Educ ation, Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1995, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.State Actions for Personnel Evaluation: Analysis of Reform Policies, 1983-1992 Carol B. Furtwengler Wichita State Universitycfurtwen@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu Abstract: This article is an analysis four major policy issu es associated with state actions for personnel evaluation from 1983 to 1992 and provides descriptive information about state policy actions taken during those years. Twenty states ena cted their first requirements for performance evaluation, and states assumed new roles for progra m development, implementation, and staff development. Twenty-nine states passed legislation for performance pay programs, but only five programs remained viable by 1992. States generally avoided the issue of teacher tenure when enacting legislation for teacher evaluation. Thirty -eight states enacted 67 changes in legislation prescribing specific requirements for personnel eva luation. During the early part of the reform movement, state actions focused on accountability; toward the end of the reform movement states actions relinquished control and returned re sponsibility for evaluation to local school districts. Legislation varied across the states in the purpose for evaluation: improvement, continuing employment, and performance pay. The stu dy found a positive relationship (0.48) between state control over personnel evaluation and state funding of education. A consistent theme stressed by reform studies duri ng the 1980s was the need to change the way school personnel are evaluated, encouraged, rec ognized, and rewarded. A Nation at Risk (1983) which became the most highly visible of the reform reports, stated: Salary, promotion, tenure, and retention decisions should be tied to an effective evaluation system that includes peer review so that superior teachers can be rewarded, average ones encouraged, and poor ones ei ther improved or terminated. (p. 30)
2 of 27 This theme was reflected in a myriad of other refor m reports (Action for Excellence, 1983; Investing in Our Children: Business and the Public Schools, 1985; Who Will Teach Our Children? A Strategy for Improving California's Sch ool, (1985). Concurrently, a study conducted for the Rand Corporation (Wise, Darling-Hammond, Mc Laughlin, and Bernstein, 1984) reported the dire state of teacher evaluation in public scho ols and prompted further concern about personnel evaluation. By the middle of the decade, however, the reform f ocus encompassed not only personnel evaluation issues but also the need to examine scho ol restructuring and career development options for school personnel. This change in direct ion is often referred to as the "second wave" of reform (Hawley, 1988). In A Nation Prepared: Teache rs for the 21st Century, the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986) stressed restructured schools and career ladders for teachers or systems for rewarding teachers based on job function, level of certification, seniority, and productivity. Policy studies of the 1980s reform movement usuall y held that the impetus for school reform resided in state governors and legislators. One evidence of state leadership was the National Governors' Association report, Time for Re sults (1986), which addressed several major strands for reform. One call was for a redesign of the structure of the teaching career to promote increased responsibility and compensation for teach ers based on "certified professional competence" (p. 39). Personnel evaluation has long been a prime concern of educational reformers as well as a focus for state-level initiatives during the reform era. A review of state statutes and regulations for teacher evaluation, for example, was conducted by Wuhs and Manatt (1983) prior to the reform movement. This article extends that earlier work. It reports the findings from the conduct of a 50-state survey to determine the changes in st ate requirements for educational personnel evaluation from 1983 until 1992. Important question s that are answered include: What do state policy trends indicate about state actions for pers onnel evaluation? What are the provisions in the statutes and regulations for teacher evaluation in each of the 50 states, and how do they differ among states? How many states adopted new statutes or regulations for educational personnel evaluation in response to the reform movement? What purposes have states identified for the conduct of personnel evaluation? What relationships can be studied to predict and understand the variance that exists in state-level involvement in personnel evaluation? This research project employed written corresponde nce, structured interviews by telephone, and the review of official written docum ents to obtain information related to the research questions. The multi-step methodology is d escribed in Appendix A. Results The key findings from the analyses of the survey d ata are reported in the subsequent five sections. The first section discusses the policy tr ends identified in state actions for personnel evaluation. The next three sections discuss detaile d information about state actions for personnel evaluation: (a) status of state regulations for per sonnel evaluation, (b) changes that have occurred in those regulations since 1983, and (c) purposes i dentified by states for personnel evaluation. The fifth section identifies possible reasons for v ariance in state involvement in and regulation of personnel evaluation. State Policy Trends in Personnel Evaluation during 1983-1992 Thirty-eight states enacted state-level policy for personnel evaluation during the reform movement. Many states passed legislation in success ive years with 67 reported instances of enactment of new policies. These legislative action s revealed several trends in state policy during
3 of 271983 through 1992.Initial Requirements for Personnel Evaluation: Stat es Jump on the Bandwagon Twenty states enacted their first requirements for the evaluation of local school district personnel during the reform movement, and this occu rred most often during the period from 1983 to 1985. These actions support the premise tha t the first "wave" of reform was an accountability movement, and personnel evaluation w as one vehicle used by policy makers in an attempt to insure assessment of personnel. Nearly o ne-half of the states passed policy that required local school districts to evaluate personn el. Other states extended their actions from policy to program implementation. They developed st ate evaluation systems and mandated their use in local school systems. In spite of this rush to legislate policy for pers onnel evaluation, 12 states took no action during the reform movement. The reason reported by states for not legislating requirements for personnel evaluation was the precedence for not imp osing state regulations upon local school districts. No definite pattern emerges for why some states refrained from "jumping on the band wagon," although nearly one-half of the states not passing legislation were in the northeast section of the country. This section of the country has historically allowed more autonomy for school districts.State Involvement in the Specification of Evaluatio n Procedures and Criteria Twenty-six states identified specific criteria for teacher evaluation, 19 states identified criteria for the evaluation of special groups of pe rsonnel such as media specialists and counselors, and 19 states identified criteria for p rincipal evaluation. States also legislated the procedural aspects of the evaluation process. Examp les of this involvement included states that legislated the exact date for the completion of a s pecific number of classroom observations to states that developed and implemented statemandat ed evaluation models for local school systems. The level of sophistication and procedural detail included in state evaluation systems were a radical departure from state policy used to "guid e" local school districts. While 12 states remained apart from the mainstream, other states, p articularly those in the southeast, went beyond policy to actual program implementation and operation. As the reform movement advanced, however, Tennessee and North Carolina rel inquished their state models for local evaluation and encouraged and supported local schoo l systems in the development of their own systems. These policy trends appear to indicate tha t states cannot maintain momentum for programs that are intrusive and override the initia tive and ownership of local school systems. Training of Evaluators for Personnel Evaluation Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, and Michigan required training in personnel evaluation for certification of administrative personnel, and stat es such as Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida required and provided stat e-level training programs for local school districts. States agencies historically directed en ergy toward the monitoring of programs at the local level and provided some technical assistance to local school systems. The amount of time, effort, and money devoted to training programs for personnel evaluation reflected a shift in policy. State agencies became active participants i n staff development and designed and provided extensive training programs for local school person nel.
4 of 27Performance Pay Programs State policy for performance pay programs can be c lassified in three general categories although the program characteristics are not mutual ly exclusive. Furtwengler (1989) described these categories as: (a) performance-based ladders, where the individual 's progression up the rungs is based upon evidence of increased competence at prog ressively more difficult and/or complex levels of professional performance; (b) job enlargement ladders, where the individual's rise is based on differentiated job ro les and responsibilities that serve the needs of students and the school beyond the teacher 's own classroom; and (c) professional development ladders, where individual advancement is based upon the completion of qualifying staff development activiti es, coursework and/or advanced degrees. (p. 1). These three categories were found entwined within p erformance pay programs enacted during the reform movement. In a previous study, Furtwengler (1994) reported t hat 21 states did not enact performance pay programs, and six states enacted legislation bu t did not implement programs. Fourteen states enacted and implemented performance pay programs bu t later discontinued them. Nine states reported operational performance pay programs in 19 92, but of these nine states, only five programs were considered viable and received consid erable state funding for their support. The viable performance pay programs in operation d uring 1992 showed different policy approaches to personnel evaluation. Tennessee repor ted a state-controlled system where the state hired and trained evaluators, developed the evaluat ion system, and determined career ladder status. Texas, on the other hand, created a state e valuation process and provided state funding, but local school personnel conducted evaluations at the local level. (Texas, however, discontinued its program since the collection of da ta for this study). The other states--Utah, Missouri, and Arizona-provided funding but allowe d local school systems latitude in program design and evaluation procedures. In addition, the performance pay programs have also combined mixed characteristics--pay for performance job-enlargement, and professional development. No one program design appeared more su ccessful than another. Performance pay programs--once a clarion cry echoi ng from governors and state capitols--have been unsuccessful as a reform policy States reported a myriad of reasons for unsuccessful program implementation: (a) lack of ad equate funding, (b) strong opposition from teachers' organizations, (c) lack of participation by local school districts, and (d) haste in implementation without adequate preparation and pro gram support. Cornett and Gaines (1994) reported that programs have been successful in . states, districts, and schools where strong leadership by educators and government officials ha s been evident" (p. 2). They also reported that performance pay programs provided more compreh ensive teacher evaluation systems than existed prior to the reform movement and involved t eachers in the evaluation process. The Tenure Issue Six states became embroiled with the tenure issue while dealing with personnel evaluation. Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey repea led their tenure statutes. Tennessee and Missouri required performance evaluation for tenure Tennessee passed its career ladder legislation in 1984 and extended the granting of te acher tenure from three years of experience to four years of experience. This action was rescinded in 1989, however, when the granting of tenure reverted to the three year standard.
5 of 27 An analysis of the teacher tenure issue and the en actment of regulations for personnel evaluation reveals that while 34 states enacted new policy, only six states directly addressed teacher tenure. Few states tackled this difficult i ssue when addressing evaluation policy, even though teacher tenure is often viewed as archaic by the public and members of the legislature. A key policy question is, "If policy makers acted in an accountability mode during the early part of the reform movement, why did they not incorporate e fforts to eliminate the tenure system?" The analysis of data from this study identified fo ur major policy trends. It also provided detailed information about state regulations for pe rsonnel evaluation, the changes made in each state's regulations during 1983 to 1992, and state purposes for evaluation. State Regulations for Personnel Evaluation The 50-state survey identified each state's curren t requirements for personnel evaluation. Variance exists among states in their requirements related to teacher evaluation and ranges from no legislated requirement to specific requirements based upon the teachers' years of experience. Appendix B provides a state-by-state summary of req uirements for teacher evaluation. No State Requirements or Delegated to Local School Systems Eight states have no statutes or regulations perta ining to teacher evaluation: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vi rginia, Ohio and Michigan. Five states specifically delegate the responsibility for person nel evaluation to local school systems: New York, Iowa, Montana, Colorado and California. The m ajority of the states with the least regulation for teacher evaluation tend to cluster i n the northeast section of the country. The remaining 37 states have statewide requirement s for personnel evaluation that can be classified into three categories. The first categor y is a generic requirement that local school districts evaluate all personnel annually. The seco nd category requires different evaluation procedures based upon years of experience. For inst ance, Alabama requires that teachers be evaluated annually during their first three years o f teaching. After that time period, teachers may be placed on a three-year evaluation cycle. In addi tion, four states use the third category and differentiate evaluation requirements even more spe cifically. Kansas, for example, requires that teachers in their first two years of service be eva luated twice annually; teachers with two to four years of experience be evaluated annually, and, tea chers with four or more years of experience be evaluated once every three years. States identified below by their requirement for personnel evaluation based upon these three categories. Eight states have one requirement for personnel ev aluation and, in most instances, it specifies that personnel be evaluated annually: Ala ska, Hawaii, South Dakota, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland and Connecticut. Maryland, however, requires evaluation only for non-tenured personnel for certification purposes. In addition, four states--Kansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, and West Virginia--differentiate by years of experience even further. These states have three different requirements for evaluation based on years of exper ience in position (see Appendix B). Even though these states require more specific evaluatio n procedures, only one state (Tennessee) ranks as a state that maintains high control over and inv olvement in personnel evaluation. Tennessee not only identifies specific criteria for the evalu ation of teachers, but also provides an optional state-model instrument for use at the local level, a state-controlled career ladder evaluation system, and training of local administrators for pe rsonnel evaluation. Kansas, on the other hand, does not provide criteria, instrumentation, process es, or training for the evaluation of teachers. No logical explanation is apparent for why policy m akers require three changes in evaluation requirements based on years of experience.
6 of 27 Twenty-five states--the 50 states less those named above--have two requirements for personnel evaluation. These requirements specify di fferent evaluation procedures based on the teachers' years of experience. These experience lev els vary from one year to four years in the position. In all states that have specific requirem ents based on years of experience, teachers with fewer years of experience have more stringent requi rements for evaluation. Three states have more stringent requirements for the first year vs. future years of employment; five states have more stringent requirements for the first two years vs. future years of employment; and 16 states have more stringent evaluation requirements during the first three years vs. future years of employment. The policy requirements for personnel evaluation r evealed no overall consistency among states, but trends emerged from the data. Trends in dicated geographical differences. The northeastern states did not "jump on the bandwagon" for reform in personnel evaluation, while states in the southeast were the most active in ena cting more stringent requirements. A common pattern among states that required personnel evalua tion was more frequent evaluation during the beginning years of teaching and then reduced requir ements as teachers reached their fourth year of service. This policy trend--the more years of se rvice, the least amount of evaluation--raises several questions about underlying policy assumptio ns. Does it suggest that (a) experienced teachers are competent professionals who need less inspection and assistance in their performance?; (b) teachers with more years of exper ience have tenure and, therefore, personnel evaluation is not worth the time and effort?; (c) b eginning teachers have the greatest need for assistance and that time and energy expended for th eir development is worthwhile? The underlying assumptions policy makers considered as they enacted new personnel evaluation requirements are unclear and provide an area for ad ditional research. Reported Changes in State Requirements Since 1983: Policy Trends Thirty-eight states reported a total of 67 changes in state statutes and regulations for teacher evaluation from 1983 until 1992 (see Append ix C). Twelve states did not legislate changes in their personnel evaluation requirements while Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and Tennessee--all states who legislated performance pa y programs-enacted the greatest number of changes.Trends: 1983-1991 The first wave of 1980s educational reform movemen t was described as one of accountability; the second wave, beginning with the Carnegie Report in 1986, moved from accountability to increased professionalism in teac hing. An examination of legislative activity for personnel evaluation from 1983-1991 (Table 1) revea ls increased activity during the accountability years, with the greatest number of p olicy initiatives for personnel evaluation enacted in 1985. Table 1 Number of enacted personnel evaluation policy initi atives, 1983-1991. YearNumber of Initiatives1983619849
7 of 27 198510198671987819888198951990719915 The trend of state policy activity from 1986 to 19 91 is unclear. These data provide support for increased prescriptive activity during the earl y years of the reform era but also reveal that personnel evaluation remained an issue in state cap itols throughout the decade. Increased State Control Followed by Relaxation of M andates Policy initiatives for personnel evaluation reveal several interesting patterns. First, state involvement, as discussed early, moved from policy to controlling procedures and criteria for evaluation. Evaluation criteria became more sophist icated and specific with criteria developed for various positions such as teachers, guidance co unselors, media specialists, and special education personnel. States also developed criteria for different administrative positions: superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and central office personnel. With the enactment of policy and detailed evaluati on procedures, many states became involved in training local school personnel and dev eloping state-level evaluation models. Some states that mandated use of local evaluation models later rescinded their actions and returned the responsibility to local school systems. A similar p attern was seen in states that required strict oversight of personnel evaluation. Florida and Virg inia removed their mandates for state monitoring of local evaluations and returned respon sibility back to local school systems. States that implemented performance pay programs r elaxed requirements throughout the reform period. Tennessee was an example of a state that actually decreased several of its requirements for performance pay and moved from man dated to voluntary program participation for new teachers. These policy changes occurred aft er the Governor, who championed the career ladder movement, left office and the opposing party was elected to power. The effect of changes in political parties--particularly in states such a s Tennessee-appeared to have significant impact on weakening original accountability plans. While some states continued to enact policy requir ing more state involvement in personnel evaluation, a pattern emerges of strong top-down" policy initiatives that were not sustained over time. States began returning or assi gning responsibility to local school systems, including, in many instances, the recommendations f or initial teacher certification based upon results of local school district evaluation.State Purposes for Evaluation An issue in personnel evaluation is whether the pu rpose of evaluation is to improve performance (formative) or to make employment or "h igh stakes" decisions (summative). Summative decisions can include re-employment, cert ification, and/or increased salary. The survey requested that states describe the purposes for evaluation that are stated in their statutes and regulations. These responses were classified un der three major categories: improvement, certification/reemployment, and increased salary/ performance pay.
8 of 27 Twelve states responded that the only stated purpo se of evaluation was improvement; nine states responded that the only stated purpose of ev aluation was for certification or re-employment. Sixteen other states articulated for mative and summative reasons for evaluation. Among these, five states reported increased salary or performance pay as reasons for evaluation, but varied in the inclusion of other reasons for ev aluation: one state includes certification and increased salary; one state includes improvement an d increased salary; one state includes improvement, certification, and performance pay; an d two states include improvement and performance pay. Eight states have no stated purpos e for evaluation and, in most instances, these are states in which the state agency has little or no involvement in personnel evaluation. Again, a pattern of "mixed messages" was seen in s tate policy for personnel evaluation. States vary in articulated reasons for evaluation r egulations ranging from improvement to performance pay. Often, the statutory regulations d id not match the stated purposes for evaluation.State Control in Personnel Evaluation and Relations hip to Other Factors This study examined numerous other aspects of pers onnel evaluation that are not reported as a part of this article. Topics addressed were: r equirements for administrator evaluation; implementation of performance pay programs; beginni ng teacher programs that involve evaluation for certification; criteria, processes, instruments, and training for evaluation of teachers, special groups of personnel (guidance, me dia specialists, counselors and others) and administrators; and methods for ascertaining local school system compliance with state requirements for personnel evaluation. States were rank ordered by the criteria applied in the study to determine the extent of state control of a nd state involvement with personnel evaluation at the local school system level. States with no in volvement in personnel evaluation ranked the lowest; states with statutes, regulations, identifi ed criteria, processes, instruments, and training programs for local school systems regarding personn el evaluation were ranked the highest. A question the study attempted to answer is, "What is the relationship of state control of personnel evaluation to other factors in public sch ool operation?" Two analyses were conducted to answer this question. First, states were rank or dered by their control over and involvement in personnel evaluation. Then, that ranking was compar ed with the amount of funding the state provides to local school systems for the operation of school districts. This ranking is shown is Table 1. The assumption was that the higher the per centage of state funding of education, the more regulation and control the state exerts on loc al school systems. Figures (1988-89) available from the U. S. Department of Education, National Ce nter for Education Statistics, that provide the percent of state funding were rank ordered. The two sets of rankings were used to calculate a Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, a measure of association to predict the magnitude and direct relationship of one variable from another. T his analysis showed that a positive relationship (0.48) exists between the degree of state regulatio n of local school system personnel evaluation and the percentage of state funding in district rev enue for education. Table 1 Rankings of States by State Control of Personnel Ev aluation by State Funds for School District and by Number of School Districts State Control Rank State Funds % Funds Rank School Districts # School Districts Rank
9 of 27 NH1 8.5117021 NE1120.2283847 OR2225.2330332 SD2525.231852 MI127.2556142 IL4331.8 696448 VT133.8 72762 VA533.8 713617NV2036.7 9172 MD1738.110 244 CO1139.01117622 MO4039.71254340 WS2239.91342936 MA541.01435235 PA1941.51550139 NJ2842.11660343 RI5 43.1 17375 NY543.21872146 TX4843.3 19106249 KS1143.5 2030433 OH543.9 2161345 AZ2645.022 23826 CT2445.2 23 16620 TN5046.0 2414118
10 of 27 ND1846.5 2528028 MT1946.6 2654841 WY2048.1 27 497 IA1148.8 2843137 SC3850.0 299113 FL4651.7 30 6711 LA3452.8316610 ME4 53.23228229 GA4053.433 18625 MN2753.63443638 IN2855.635 30331 OK4755.93660444 AR3156.137 32634 UT3757.038 406 MS4557.539 15219 ID1159.640 11514 AL4461.741 12915 AK5 63.642 548 WV3364.443559 NC4966.14413416CA3166.445 107450 KY3568.14617723 DE3968.447 183 WA2270.84829630
11 of 27 NM3573.549 8812 HI4087.150 11 a) 1988-89 data from the U. S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Education Statistics (funds)b) 1989-90 data from the U. S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Education Statistics (districts ) The study tested for a possible relationship betwe en the number of school districts in a state and the extent of state control over personne l evaluation. This premise was provided by a state who exerted high control over personnel evalu ation and believed that it was because the state, although large in geographic size, had less than 70 school districts. The assumption was that states with a comparatively low number of scho ol districts exerted greater state control than states with a comparatively high number of district s. The states were rank ordered by the number of school districts according to 1989-90 figures fr om the U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (see Table 1). A Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient revealed a weak relationship (-0.12) between the de gree of a state's control over personnel evaluation and its number of school districts. Conclusions What do changes in state policy indicate about the effect of the reform movement of the 1980s on school personnel evaluation? States marche d to the tune of the accountability drum: Twenty states enacted their first requirements for personnel evaluation by local school districts, and 38 states enacted 67 policy initiatives related to personnel evaluation. This intense state interest in accountability led states to move from the policy arena into implementation of personnel evaluation systems. In addition, four states removed their tenure stat utes and more than one-half of the states passed legislation for performance pay programs. Mo st of these programs were never implemented or were later eliminated. By 1992, only five viable performance pay programs were in existence, and these programs varied in design a nd state control. Twelve states, however, remained aloof from the wi nds of policy change and did not address personnel evaluation during the reform move ment. This was especially true for states in the northeast region of the country. This study exa mined relationships that might foster increased requirements for personnel evaluation at the state level. A positive relationship (0.48) was discovered between state control over personnel eva luation and state funding of education. Further investigation into other factors that may b e related to state actions for personnel evaluation is needed. One fruitful area for explora tion is the potential inverse relationship between state control of evaluation and the degree of collective bargaining in a state. The initial reform movement placed a premium on ac countability of individual staff members in schools to effect a change in student ac hievement. Arizona and North Carolina reported improved student achievement in their care er ladder pilot sites, but the effects of personnel evaluation on school improvement has not been firmly decided. States who exerted the most control over personnel evaluation during the e arly reform movement later decreased the amount of control and returned many responsibilitie s to local school districts. This trend indicates that states are unable to sustain prescri ptive "top down" mandates over extended periods of time. Conjecture could be made that toda y's work on team incentives, team awards,
12 of 27outcome-based education, and site-based management may produce more effective methods of school improvement than further attention to person nel evaluation. References California Commission on the Teaching Profession. ( 1985) Who will teach our children? A strategy for improving California's schools. Sacram ento, CA: California Commission on the Teaching Profession.Carnegie Forum of Education and the Economy's Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st ce ntury. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Cornett, L. M. & Gaines, G. F. (1994). Reflecting o n ten years of incentive programs: The 1993 SREB career ladder clearinghouse survey. Atlanta, G A: Southern Regional Education Board. Furtwengler, C. (1989). Evaluating career ladder/in centive programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.Furtwengler, C. (1984). The rise and demise of stat e-level performance pay programs: A 50-state summary of the reform initiative. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Hawley, W. D. (1988). Missing pieces of the educati onal reform agenda: Or, why the first and second waves may miss the boat. Educational Adminis tration Quarterly, 24, 416-437. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (19 83). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, Washington D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. National Governors' Association. (1986). Time for r esults: The governors' 1991 report on education. Washington, DC: National Governors' Asso ciation. Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. (1985). Investing in our children: Business and the public schools. N Y: Committee for Economic Development. Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983) Action for excellence. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.U. S. Department of Education. (1990). Directory of public elementary and secondary education agencies, 1989-90. Washington DC: National Center f or Education Statistics. U. S. Department of Education. (1990). Elementary a nd secondary finances: Common core data. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Stati stics. Wise, A., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa M onica, CA: Rand Corporation. Wuhs, S. K., & Manatt, R. P. (1983). The pace of ma ndated teacher evaluation picks up. American School Board Journal, 170(5), 28. Appendix A Multi-Step Procedures in Methodology
13 of 27Wrote a letter to each Chief State School Officer ( CSSO) explaining the research project and information required. Explained that a telephon e call would be placed in two weeks to schedule a time to discuss the project. 1. Developed a 16-question, structured interview proto col. Pilot tested the protocol by having it reviewed by experts in the field and by conducti ng trial interviews with two state agencies Refined and revised the protocol. 2. Placed initial telephone calls to each CSSO. Discus sed the research project, the need to conduct in-depth structured interviews, and the nee d to obtain written documents for review and analysis (legislation, regulations, pers onnel evaluation programs, training programs). Obtained names of designated staff membe rs to assist in providing needed information. 3. Conducted structured interviews with identified sta ff members to answer research questions. Requested available written documents th at pertain to legislation, regulations, and personnel evaluation programs. 4. Entered information from structured interviews for each state into study data base. 5. Entered information from review and analyses of wri tten documents for each state into data base. 6. Analyzed data and summarized findings for the resea rch questions. 7. Appendix B 1992 State Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Base d on Years of Experience___________________________________________________ ______________ State Probationary Description Years___________________________________________________ ______________ Alabama 3 Very broad in statute; 1988 State Board Resolution requi res development of researc h-based criteria for evaluatio n of all professional personnel ; administrator systems are completed; teacher sys tem current is being developed wit h optional cycle after three year s of experience Alaska Once each year for all certificated personnel Arizona 3 0-3 years experience 2 times a year 3+ years of experience annual Arkansas 3 0-3 years experience 3 observations plus pre/ post feedback 3+ years experience 2 observations and feedback California 2 Local discretion; requ ired to assist probationary employees Colorado 3 Local discretion; requ ired to specify frequency, dur ation, met must include observati on Connecticut(a) Annual for all certifi cated personnel
14 of 27 Delaware 3 0-3 years experience annual with 3 conferences and final appraisal conference 3+ years of experience 3 conferences and apprai sal conference for two-year cycle or one-year with 2 formative confe rences and performance appraisal conference Florida(a) 0-1 year experience (m ay be extended to 2 years) 5 observ ations: diagnostic/screening o bservation, three formative observ ations, and one summative observat ion 2+ years of experience annual evaluation required; l ocal discretion Georgia Annual evaluation of a ll certificated personnel ; 3 every three years observations required for teachers, one before Jan. 1 Hawaii 2 Annual evaluation is r equired for all personnel; however 0-2 years of experience is initial probationary; Idaho 3 0-3 years experience 1 evaluation prior to the beginning of the second semester; 3rd year sec ond evaluation during the school year for obtaining renewable contract sta tus 3+ years of experience annual prior to June 15 Illinois 2 0-2 years experience annual; 2+ years of experience at least every other year Indiana(a) Periodic-observation b y December 31 Iowa 2 Local required to have personnel evaluation for all job descriptions; local discretion Kansas 2 0-2 years experience 2 times a year by 60th day of ea ch semester 2+-4 years experience annual by February 15 4+ years experience once every three years by Februar y 15 Kentucky 3 0-3 years experience annual 3+ years experience once every three years Louisiana 3 0-3 years experience two times year 3+ years experience once every three years (this requ irement is
15 of 27 currently on hold) Maine None Maryland 2(b) Locals must conduct ev aluation of non-tenured teachers 2 times a year and conduct 4 observat ions; this requirement is for rec ommendation for certification Massachusetts 2 Statute on books but h as not been implemented; requires evaluation by school community after two years experience but has nev er been funded Michigan(a) None; code references need for locals to supervise an d evaluate instructional staff Minnesota(a) 3 0-3 years experience a nnual evaluation and require ment for participation in human relations course 3+ years experience one observation with no de fined time frame Mississippi 3 0-3 years experience annual in fall and spring and de monstrate performance of identif ied teacher competencies 3+ years experience local discretion Missouri 3 0-3 years experience annual. Only reference is to ongoin g performance based evaluation; proc ess and time lines are local discre tion 3+ years experience once every three years Montana None except LEAs must have policies and processes for regu lar and periodic evaluation Nebraska 3 0-3 years experience two times a year, once each semest er 3+ years experience annual Nevada 1 0-1 year experience three times a year by December 1, Fe bruary 1 and April 1. 1+ years of experience annual New Hampshire 3 None New Jersey Probationary 3 obser vations a year must have written ev aluation with strengths and improvem ents, professional developme nt plan, summary indicators of pupil progress and growth, and confer ence within fifteen days of observ ation
16 of 27 Tenured annual New Mexico(a) 3 0-3 years experience annual and include state's six es sential teaching competencies, 3+ years experience once every three year and indepth growth plan New York None except that LEAs must evaluate educational personnel; LEAs bargain tenure North Carolina 3 Annual evaluation requ ired for all experience levels; boa rd permits 2 year cycle for profess ional teachers North Dakota 3 0-3 years experience two times a year by December 15 an d March 15 3+ years of experience annual Ohio(a) Local discretion; only state guidelines if not reem ployed, then must be evaluated 2 ti mes a year by February 1 and April 1 two observations are requi red for each evaluation Oklahoma 3 0-3 years experience two times a year by November 15 an d February 10 3+ years of experience annual Oregon 3 0-3 years experience annual with multiple observations, locals determine time frame 3+ years experience once every two years with multipl e observations Pennsylvania 2 0-2 years experience 2 times a year 2+ years of experience annual Rhode Island None local discretio n South Carolina(a)2 0-2 years experience e valuated with state instruments (pro visional) 2+-4 years experience annual 4+ years of experience once every three years South Dakota 2 0-2 years experience 2 times a year (evaluated and gi ven notice during each semester) Tennessee 3 Probationary/apprentic e (0-3 years experience) two observ ations annually. 4+ years experience (n on-career ladder) twice in fiveyear period 4+ years experience (c areer ladder status) twice in ten-y ear period.
17 of 27 Texas 2 0 2 years experience Incentive program career level I requires two evaluations a year with 4 observations 2+ years of experience (career level II and III) annu al evaluation that includes 2 observ ations Utah 4 0-4 years experience 2 evaluations year 4+ years experience if on probation, two times a year; not specified in statute o r regulations if not on probation Vermont None; local standards boards recommend teachers wit h two years of experience for second level certificate Virginia 3 None state board gui delines but not mandatory; local d iscretion; LEAs recommend after 3 years experience for continu ing contract Washington 1 0-1 year experience required 60 minutes of observation a year, 1 observation must be 30 minutes and conducted within first ninety days; use seven state criter ia to evaluate (Bill pending to raise probationary status from one year t o two years). 1+ years experience annual 60 minutes of observation one must be a minimum of 30 minute s; can use a "short" form after 4 y ears West Virginia 2 0-2 years experience evaluated two times a year with two observations for each evaluation 3-6 years experience annual with two observations 7+ years experience can have professional growth an d development cycle in lieu of evalu ation Wisconsin(a) 1 0-1 year experience ev aluated at end of first year 1+ years of experienc e evaluated every three years usin g twenty prescribed standards Wyoming 3 0-3 years experience evaluated two times year 3+ years experience evaluated once every three years (a)Information has not been verified by written doc umentation (b)Local board of education option to make two-year probationary period
18 of 27 Appendix C Changes in State Statutes/Regulations for Personnel Evaluation Since 1983 State Year Change in Statute or Regulation Alabama1985 Passed first legislation requiring evaluation of pe rsonnel as part of a career ladder incentive program 1988 Repealed career ladder incentive program 1988 Passed State Board of Education resolution directin g state superintendent to develop research-based criteria for evaluation of all educa tion personnel Alaska 1983 Passed requirement that results from evaluation mus t be approved by a person who has administrative certificationArizona 1984 Required school districts to use the advice of teac hers in developing evaluation system 1985 Removed tenure for basis for increased pay; specifi ed minimum duration of observations and specified other evaluation criteria; required e valuators to be trained in evaluation system and added as rider on certificate 1986 Developed system for teacher compensation based on growth; allowed LEAs to add 5% to local tax base if repeal tenure and have evaluation system approved by SDE 1987 Involved SDE in review of evaluation systems and ab ility to apply funds; required LEAs to submit evidence that teachers involved in performan ce evaluation system 1990 Based professional advancement on increasingly high er teaching skills, pupil academic progress and instructional responsibilityArkansas1986 Required development of teachers' professional grow th plan to provide good teachers a path for improvement and to provide, before termina tion, six months notice with written feedback and time to improve 1991 Appointed task force to design and implement a lice nsure system for teachers and administrators based on outcomes
19 of 27California1983 Required that LEAs provide training, assistance and evaluations for probationary employees; required certification that personnel as signed to evaluate teacher have demonstrated competence in instructional methodologies and evalu ation for teachers they are assigned to evaluateColorado1984 Required LEAs to adopt system of evaluation for all certificated personnel that specifies frequency and duration of evaluation, and must incl ude observation 1985 Passed Educational Quality Act that addressed caree r ladders, mentor teacher program, and performance incentives 1990 Removed tenure and added two additional purposes fo r evaluation--measurement of satisfactory performance and documentation for unsa tisfactory performance; allowed LEAs to design and implement pilot alternative salary; requ ired persons responsible for evaluation to hold administrative certificate and participate in 30 ho urs approved evaluation training before certificate renewal practicesConnecticut1987 Required development of LEA teacher evaluation syst em and teacher career incentives program with report due on or before June 15, 1989 1990 Passed 19 state board guidelines for evaluation tha t were more specific and designed to assist LEAs in developing comprehensive plansDelaware1985 Passed first requirements for personnel evaluation that required LEAs to be responsible for an accountability system for all personnelFlorida1983 Required specific criteria for annual evaluation 1986 Adjusted criteria and required each LEA to submit e valuation plan for SBE approval; required superintendent to report names of personne l with two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations to SDE for consideration of removal of certificate 1988 Recommended that only names submitted are those not being reemployed by LEA; required SDE to have process to determine if certif ication should be removed. 1992 Moved review of evaluation systems from SDE to LEA board of education; supported school improvement plans that address various stage s of teaching career and identify areas
20 of 27needing special instrumentationGeorgia1985 Required LEA annual evaluation and satisfactory rat ing to receive salary step increase (prior to 1985 had certification assessment that wa s no longer funded in 1989-1990) Hawaii1984 Required specific criteria for teacher assessment a nd identification of performance objectives with performance evaluation; included mu tually agreed upon professional development plan 1986 Changed evaluation from annual to a multi-year cycl e for tenured teachers who are rated satisfactoryIdaho1984 Defined tenure as occurring after third year Illinois1985 Passed first specific requirements for teacher eval uation; required LEAs to develop its own teacher evaluation system in cooperation with teach ers and evaluate nontenured personnel annually and tenured at least every other year and have performance ratings and justifications for ratings; required year of remediation if unsatisfac tory rating and included failure to complete remedial plan as another reason for dismissalIndiana1987 Passed first specific law requiring periodic teache r evaluation that required (a) evaluation format by LEAs with state approval, (b) format lead to improvement of performance of all certificated personnel; (c) format may be used for making personnel decisions; (d) observed by person in authority by December 31 and another by p erson requested by March 1 Iowa1986 Changed school approval process and included accoun tability for LEA personnel evaluation in a comprehensive list as part of accre ditation requirements; required LEA to have evaluation system for all staff; identified first t wo years as probationary with right to waive by LEA board of directorsKansas None Kentucky
21 of 271984 Required LEAs to evaluate non-tenured personnel ann ually and tenured at least once every three years 1985 Required appeals procedures, state training for cer tification of evaluators 1990 Passed comprehensive reform package that emphasizes curriculum and assessment; delayed evaluation changes until determined what ou tcomes principals will assess Louisiana1988 Required experienced teachers to be assessed by sta te with performance evaluation system for recertification and professional growth and dev elopment; funded teaching internship program for support for beginning teachers for two years pr ior to certification assessment Maine--Maryland--Massachusetts --MichiganAdministrators required for initial certification or renewal to provide evidence of successful completion of training in personnel eval uation. Minnesota1988 Required demonstration of basic academic skills in reading & writing; developed outcomes-based performance standards for beginning teacher Mississippi1983 Required performance evaluation as part of process of moving from professional to standard license; required SDE to provide assistanc e in personnel evaluation at the local level 1986 Required LEAS to conduct annual fall and spring eva luation to assess performance of teacher competence; required performance evaluation by state board of education to receive standard certificateMissouri1983
22 of 27 Required ongoing teacher performance based evaluati on and maintenance of teacher records 1984 SBE approved a model and procedures for comprehensi ve performance evaluation 1985 Passed Excellence in Education Act establishing car eer ladder and minimum salary tied to performance based evaluation 1990 Modified tenure requiring performance based evaluat ion and allowed part-time employees to have credit toward tenureMontana1989 Required board of trustees to have policy for regul ar and periodic evaluation Nebraska--Nevada1989 Required observation 3 times a year for first year teachers & one time a year after that for successful employee; required LEAs to develop form and send to SDE New Hampshire--New Jersey1991 Removed tenure and requested specific evaluation pr ocess established in 18 months New Mexico1983 Required annual probationary teacher evaluation wit h multiple observations based on state six essential teaching competencies; required exper ienced teachers be evaluated on a three-year cycle with an indepth professional growth plan 1988 Required administrators to use staff input as compo nent of evaluation; adjusted teacher competencies to make them more measurable 1989 Developed specific criteria for special groups of p ersonnel (librarians, counselor, audiologist, nurse)New York--North Carolina
23 of 271987 Changed regulation on observation requirements; all ows local board to use two-year cycle and adjust tenure to match evaluation cycle 1989 Allowed LEAs to develop alternative performance eva luation system in lieu of state Teacher Performance Appraisal System for tenured, c ertified staff 1991 Passed amendment that requires development of local evaluation instruments; required SDE to provide assistance with information about pe rsonnel personal growth and development activities and hiring, termination and promotion pr actices. North DakotaRequired two evaluations annually for probationary teachers and annual for experienced teachers; described reasons for nonrenewal/terminat ion (1985-1989) Ohio--Oklahoma1990 Removed tenured; required additional evaluation cri teria; added new rules on teacher dismissalOregon--Pennsylvania--Rhode Island--South Carolina1988 Added requirement for principal evaluation South Dakota1990 Added one more requirement for local school boards to include in evaluation policy at local levelTennessee
24 of 271984 Passed career ladder certification system based on performance evaluations with incentive pay supplements; required program participation for all teachers entering after July 1, 1984 (optional for others) 1987 Made career ladder participation optional and reins tituted professional teacher license; extended duration of advanced career ladder certifi cations from five years to ten years; changed probationary (1st year) and apprentice (2-4 years) certificates to licenses 1988 Changed extended contracts from career ladder educa tors to all educators based on annual needs assessment by LEA with Level II and III caree r ladder educators having priority 1989 Changed tenure from four years to three years by al lowing probationary year to count towards tenure; allowed teachers in private schools with 85% state funding to be eligible to participate in career ladder programTexas1984 Changed emphasis from due process and marginal teac her to differentiate performance and identify excellence; required 4 observations a year for Career Level I and 2 observations a year for Career Level II and III 1987 Required focus of evaluation of administrators be o n state approved criteria Utah1985 Required local boards to evaluate probationary and provisional teachers 2 times a year; required principals to orient teachers to evaluatio n system before conduct of evaluation process 1990 Required local school boards to develop evaluation program in consultation with joint committee of educators; defined components of evalu ation program including a "reasonable" number of observations and use of several types of evidence Vermont--Virginia1991 Removed state administrative team visits to review evaluation procedures and allowed LEAs to self-reportWashington1987 Required everyone conducting evaluations to be trai ned; required teachers placed on probation to participate in assistance program; req uired SDI to develop models for evaluation and allowed alternative formative plan for professional growth that LEAs can adapt
25 of 27 West Virginia1985 Passed first policy requiring evaluation of tenured and non tenured employees; included was stated purpose for career ladder/incentives 1987 Revoked incentives 1991 Required time frames for observation and allowed af ter seven years experience, an optional growth and development goal settingWisconsin1986 Required formalization that LEAS must evaluate cert ificated personnel in written format; required beginning teachers to be evaluated at end of first year; required that 20 personnel standards be used to evaluate experienced personnel every 3 years Wyoming1984 Required local board of trustees to evaluate perfor mance of each initial contract teacher in writing at least 2 times annually.About the AuthorCarol B. Furtwengler firstname.lastname@example.org Associate ProfessorBox 142Wichita State UniversityPh.D., George Peabody College of Vanderbilt Univers ity Carol Furtwengler is a former teacher and administr ator. She served as Assistant Commissioner for Research and Development and Assis tant Commissioner of Career Ladder Program for Tennessee Department of Education and t hen as educational aide for Governor Lamar Alexander. Her academic and research interest s include personnel evaluation, applied inquiry, and school choice. Dr. Furtwengler's other published work includes articles on teacher observation and evaluation, (Educational Leadership Phi Delta Kappan, Education Policy Analysis Archives); career ladder programs, (Educat ional Leadership), book chapter on cooperative learning in higher education (NEA), adm inistration preparation (Journal of School Leadership)Copyright 1995 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the
26 of 27LISTSERV known as EPAA at LISTSERV@asu.edu. (To sub scribe, send an email letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu whose sole contents are SUB EPAA y our-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in three forms. Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@a su.edu and making the single line in the letter rea d GET KEMMIS V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entire ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@asu.edu: INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, tha t is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDEX EPAA F=MAIL.The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/epaaEducation Policy Analysis Archives are "gophered" at olam.ed.asu.edu To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu and include the single l ine GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.ed u or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)Editorial Board John Covaleskiejcovales@nmu.edu Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis firstname.lastname@example.org Mark E. Fetlermfetler@ctc.ca.gov Thomas F. Greentfgreen@mailbox.syr.edu Alison I. Griffithagriffith@edu.yorku.ca Arlen Gullickson email@example.com Ernest R. Houseernie.firstname.lastname@example.org Aimee Howleyess016@marshall.wvnet.edu Craig B. Howley email@example.com William Hunterhunter@acs.ucalgary.ca Richard M. Jaeger firstname.lastname@example.org Benjamin Levinlevin@ccu.umanitoba.ca Thomas Mauhs-Pughthomas.email@example.com Dewayne Matthewsdm@wiche.edu Mary P. McKeowniadmpm@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Les McLeanlmclean@oise.on.ca Susan Bobbitt Nolensunolen@u.washington.edu Anne L. Pembertonapembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrieprohugh@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Richard C. Richardsonrichard.firstname.lastname@example.org Anthony G. Rud Jr.email@example.com Dennis Sayersdmsayers@ucdavis.edu Jay Scribnerjayscrib@tenet.edu
27 of 27Robert Stonehillrstonehi@inet.ed.gov Robert T. Stoutstout@asu.edu