Purpose New teacher evaluation systems have expanded the role of principals as instructional leaders, but little is known about principals’ ability to promote teacher development through the evaluation process. We conducted a case study of principals’ perspectives on evaluation and their experiences implementing observation and feedback cycles to better understand whether principals feel as though they are able to promote teacher development as evaluators. Research Methods We conducted interviews with a stratified random sample of 24 principals in an urban district that recently implemented major reforms to its teacher evaluation system. We analyzed these interviews by drafting thematic summaries, coding interview transcripts, creating data-analytic matrices, and writing analytic memos. Findings We found that the evaluation reforms provided a common framework and language that helped facilitate principals’ feedback conversations with teachers. However, we also found that tasking principals with primary responsibility for conducting evaluations resulted in a variety of unintended consequences which undercut the quality of evaluation feedback they provided. We analyze five broad solutions to these challenges: strategically targeting evaluations, reducing operational responsibilities, providing principal training, hiring instructional coaches, and developing peer evaluation systems. Implications The quality of feedback teachers receive through the evaluation process depends critically on the time and training evaluators have to provide individualized and actionable feedback. Districts that task principals with primary responsibility for conducting observation and feedback cycles must attend to the many implementation challenges associated with this approach in order for next-generation evaluation systems to successfully promote teacher development.

In 2009, the New Teacher Project’s The Widget Effect documented the failure of U.S. public school districts to recognize and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. We revisit these findings by compiling teacher performance ratings across 24 states that adopted major reforms to their teacher evaluation systems. In the vast majority of these states, the percentage of teachers rated unsatisfactory remains less than 1%. However, the full distributions of ratings vary widely across states, with 0.7% to 28.7% rated below proficient and 6% to 62% rated above proficient. We present original survey data from an urban district illustrating that evaluators perceive more than 3 times as many teachers in their schools to be below proficient than they rate as such. Interviews with principals reveal several potential explanations for these patterns.

More students with disabilities (SWDs) are being educated in general education classrooms than ever before, resulting in higher expectations for the abilities of general education teachers to meet SWDs' educational needs. Yet few recent, quantitative studies have examined if teaching SWDs influences general education certified or special education certified teachers' decisions to remain teaching at their same school. We fit multilevel logistic regression models to a large state administrative dataset in order to examine (1) if the percentage of SWDs a teacher instructs was associated with turnover, (2) if this association varied by student disability, and (3) how these associations were moderated by special education certification. The percentage of SWDs in teachers' classes was associated with an increase in the odds of turnover after controlling for teacher, classroom, and school characteristics. This association was completely moderated by special education certification and dual-certification in special education and general education such that there was not an association between the percentage of SWDs in these teachers' classes and their odds of turnover. Teaching students with behavioral disorders was associated with a large increase in the odds of turnover for all categories of teachers. Results suggest the need for more training and supports for teachers with SWDs in their classrooms.

Federal policies have aimed to improve access to grade-level curriculum for students with disabilities (SWD). Current conceptualizations of access posit that it is evidenced by students’ academic outcomes. In a meta-analysis of 180 effect sizes from 23 studies, we examined access as outcomes by estimating the size of the gap in reading achievement between students with and without disabilities. Findings indicated that SWDs performed 1.17 standard deviations, or more than 3 years, below typically developing peers. The reading gap varied by disability label but not by other student and assessment characteristics. We discuss implications for access to grade-level curriculum and potential reasons for why the achievement gap is so large despite existing policies.