LAUSR

ABSTRACT Over the past decade U.S. policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have sought to examine if changing teacher evaluation policies and systems have resulted in changes in identifying quality teachers and/or increased student achievement. This research generally shows most states have experienced little change in how teachers are rated. Researchers are now exploring why, in many cases, teacher evaluation reforms have failed to produce the desired systematic changes of better identifying quality teachers and better distinguishing teacher performance. Embedded within this line of inquiry is how principals (and other evaluators) are trained to use new teacher evaluation systems. This comparative case study observed six principals (three charter school principals and three traditional public school principals) in the U.S. state of Michigan as they learned and enacted a new teacher evaluation system. Additionally, all principals were interviewed three times throughout the school year, in an effort to examine how their initial teacher evaluation training impacted their evaluation of teachers. The research questions that guided this work were: (1) how are principals initially trained when their school adopts a new teacher evaluation system?; (2) in what ways does the training received by charter school principals compare to that of traditional public school principals?; and (3) how does initial training impact how principals evaluate teachers? Results indicate principals are trained to navigate the logistics of new teacher evaluation systems, but are not trained to evaluate teacher performance. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.