Doctor of Education, Miami University, 2021, Educational Leadership

This dissertation was intended to answer questions focused on the impact of the current teacher evaluation system on teacher self-efficacy. Data was gathered using three different data sources. First, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with teachers who were evaluated on full cycle for the 2020-2021 school year. Second, observations were conducted during the post -observation conference between the educator and the evaluator. Finally, the educators in the sample group were asked to keep a reflection journal during one observation cycle. This phenomenological study was conducted to help understand the commonalities and differences in the lived experience within this particular group. The fundamental goal of the approach is to arrive at a description of the nature of the particular phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). Ohio's Teacher Evaluation System aims to be a professional growth model and is intended to be used to continually assist educators in improving teacher performance. Evaluation can potentially enhance a teacher's belief in their self-efficacy by being a tool for improving staff development to increase teacher enthusiasm and teaching efficacy (Finnegan, 2013). From the interviews, the educators shared their experiences which allowed three ideas to surface. First, the experience of an educator with the current teacher evaluation system depends on the educator's position, the evaluator's knowledge, and the relationship between the educator and the evaluator. Second, these educators don't rely on the current evaluation system to measure their effectiveness. A final theme emerged to describe the idea that even with an agreed upon Collective Bargaining Agreement outlines the process, the experience of each educator varies because each evaluator has his or her own style used to provide feedback. Additional themes emerged from the post-observation conferences including, questions asked by the evaluator, evaluator feedback given, areas of refin (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Lucian A. Szlizewski Dr. (Advisor); Amity Noltemeyer Dr. (Committee Member); Joel Malin Dr. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), University of Findlay, 2019, Education

Differentiation is included as a separate subdomain in the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. The inclusion of differentiation on standards-based teacher evaluation systems requires it to be similarly defined formally and operationally by both teachers and administrators. This study investigated how teachers define differentiation, how administrators define differentiation, and how the two groups' definitions align. An online mixed-methods survey was distributed to administrators throughout the state of Ohio. In the survey, teachers and administrators were asked to openly-define differentiation and to rate 32 possible examples of differentiation. The 32 examples of differentiation included examples of differentiation found in the literature regarding differentiation, non-examples of differentiation found in the literature, and possible examples of differentiation encountered by the researcher in his career. Of the 32 possible examples of differentiation, 31 did not show a statistically significant difference between administrators' and teachers' responses. One (emphasis on higher-order thinking) did show a significant difference. However, over 50% of both teachers and administrators either agreed or strongly agreed that 30 of the 32 examples and non-examples of differentiation should be considered differentiation. As a result, it was concluded that teachers and administrators do share common views on differentiation in practice but that it is a primarily all-inclusive definition. The study demonstrated that the need for a common definition including stronger clarity involving the parameters of differentiation is needed for the concept to be truly accepted for inclusion in a high-stakes standards-based teacher evaluation system.

Committee: Nicole Williams (Committee Chair); John Gillham (Committee Member); Jon Brasfield (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Educational Leadership; Educational Theory

Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education, Cleveland State University, 2010, College of Education and Human Services

In this era of high-stakes testing and tight funding there is unprecedented interest in and a requirement for accountability in the field of education. Virtually all funded projects are required to have an evaluation component designed to determine if project goals have been met. Positive outcomes are often the basis for continued funding and implementation. School systems also depend heavily on well-designed evaluations to assess the quality and impact of the professional development they offer to bring about change in teacher practice, in their effort to implement reform, and to demonstrate accountability to their stakeholders. The need to provide and assess professional development to improve teaching practices has generated numerous evaluation models that are widely used but have not been empirically tested. Since important program decisions are based on the results of these assessments, there is a great need to ensure the efficacy of these evaluation models to appropriately assess the programs they are intended to evaluate. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to empirically test the theory underlying Guskey's Model for evaluating professional development, which is widely used by school systems engaging in program assessment. This study focused on testing the nomological network of one of the most commonly used evaluation models developed by Thomas Guskey. A description of the model is presented along with a discussion of the lack of empirical evidence that exists regarding its effectiveness. By investigating the relationships among the five components in Guskey's Model (Teacher Satisfaction, Teacher Knowledge, Teacher Practices, Administrative Support and Student Outcomes), it was possible to determine whether these assumed relationships actually do exist and contribute to the accuracy of the program evaluation. Data collected from Reading First Ohio over the past 6 years was utilized to test the nomological net of Guskey's model. The finding indicat (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Judy Stahlman (Committee Co-Chair); Joshua Bagakas (Committee Co-Chair); Michael Loovis (Committee Member); Paul Williams (Committee Member); James Salzman (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Evaluation

Ed.D., Antioch University, 2025, Education

Storytelling, when using the National Storytelling Network's definition, “the interactive art of using words and actions to reveal the elements and images of a story while encouraging the listener's imagination,” can be found in most classrooms around the world. If we agree with Walter Fisher and see stories as content with “coherence” and “fidelity” (Fisher, 1987), then much of the communication in classrooms could be considered a form of storytelling. A real question then becomes apparent: why aren't teachers given extensive training and tools to strengthen their storytelling skills? Restorative Storytelling, a practice I developed out of my years as an elementary school teacher and decades as a professional storyteller, was designed for educators who wish to use storytelling as a teaching tool, as a classroom management tool, and as a tool for supporting communication in the classroom. This evaluation of the Restorative Storytelling program lives at the crossroads of three key theoretical frameworks: the Narrative Paradigm, dialogic practice, and Systems Leadership. Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm is used to seek a common definition of storytelling, and in particular Restorative Storytelling. Dialogic practices like Open Dialogue and Sustaining Dialogue offer a comprehensive and elegant protocol for deep, collaborative communication. Systems Leadership is an evolving framework for how a program like Restorative Storytelling and its evaluation can collectively thrive for all stakeholders. I used an explanatory sequential design which led with quantitative analysis of data collected from three separate surveys, the results of which were corroborated or explained by a series of stakeholder interviews using Participatory Action Research and thematic analysis. The results found that the program was indeed relevant and effective for the participants, while uncovering emergent indications for ways to improve the program and its continued evaluatio (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Gary Delanoeye PhD (Committee Chair); Emiliano Gonzalez PhD (Committee Member); Elizabeth Beaven EdD (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership

Doctor of Philosophy, University of Toledo, 2023, Curriculum and Instruction

Although researchers have studied the impact of teacher evaluation laws on teachers and administrators, we know very little about how administrators, who assume most of the responsibility for implementing the state-mandated teacher evaluation system, proceed in making use of the evaluation tool their district uses for its performance evaluation system for teachers. Using an ethnographic approach, this multiple-case study seeks to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these complexities by examining the practices of three assistant principals from the same southeast Michigan school district. Major findings triangulated using multiple data sources including reflective journaling, questionnaires, interviews, artifacts, and focus groups, revealed administrators face substantial challenges implementing the state-mandated teacher evaluation system. Nonetheless, they persist, developing innovative solutions (e.g., tools) to help them implement the system with fidelity and engage in continuous cycles of self-improvement, which leads to increased self-efficacy.

Committee: Susanna Hapgood (Committee Chair); Mark Templin (Committee Member); Katherine Delaney (Committee Member); Edward Januk (Committee Member) Subjects: Education

Doctor of Philosophy, University of Akron, 2022, Secondary Education

This study examined special education teachers' lived experiences with their state evaluation system. A critical practice approach to policy analysis was applied to gain insight on their perceptions of high states evaluation systems and provide perspective of the impact of the system on their instructional practices and students' learning. Use of this approach recognized that teachers are part of the policy process and shed light on the complex process of policy implementation within special education. Six Ohio special education teachers who were evaluated by Ohio's Teacher Evaluation System 1.0 and 2.0 were represented in this study. A qualitative phenomenological approach was used to obtain the results for this study. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and a focus group were conducted for data collection instrumentation. Data was analyzed and three major themes emerged: 1. Current evaluation systems were not aligned to special education environments. 2. Teachers view current high stakes evaluation systems as rating systems versus growth models. 3. Positive or negative experiences with teacher evaluation systems are dependent on the evaluator. Results of this study provide evidence of special education teacher experiences with evaluation through the voices of special education teachers directly involved and filled in gaps between the policy and the actual practice of the policy. Results also shed light on the negotiations, actions, and decisions special education teachers make because of teacher evaluation policy and will be used to inform future reform efforts related to teacher evaluation of special education teachers

Committee: Lisa Lenhart (Committee Chair); Xin Liang (Committee Member); William Visco (Committee Member); Ronald Otterstetter (Committee Member); Alfred Daviso III (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Special Education

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Ohio University, 2022, Curriculum and Instruction (Education)

This dissertation explored the systemic factors influencing learners' technology outcomes in a teacher preparation program, specifically addressing technology fluency and the ability to integrate technology into instruction. Using a combination of grounded theory and qualitative program evaluation, this study identified the scope, contexts, and systems of influence and control that have an impact on technology skills development for teacher candidates. Using backward design, this study mapped the learning experiences of teacher candidates, identifying key contributors of technology skills development within the program. Using this analysis, a conceptual framework outlining the flow of systemic influences was created, and a data collection tool was developed to quantify the technology fluency and disposition of program faculty. These tools can be used to identify and evaluate a teacher preparation program's technology outcomes, and evaluate the technology abilities of program staff. Through qualitative interviews, this tool was used to identify the overall temperament toward technology within the program and identify areas in which improvements could be made. Recommendations were made for the specific program in the final chapter.

Committee: Frans Doppen (Committee Chair); Sara Helfrich (Committee Member); Sara Hartman (Committee Member); Greg Kessler (Committee Member) Subjects: Adult Education; Curricula; Curriculum Development; Education; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Educational Software; Educational Technology; Elementary Education; Higher Education Administration; Information Technology; Instructional Design; Organization Theory; Organizational Behavior; Pedagogy; Preschool Education; Reading Instruction; School Administration; Secondary Education; Special Education; Teacher Education; Teaching; Technology

Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education, Cleveland State University, 2020, College of Education and Human Services

The largest group of students receiving special education services in the United States qualify under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (Cottrell & Barrett, 2015). The most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) was the first time that federal special education law substantially changed the way in which Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) could identify students with SLDs. Because of their specialized training, school psychologists are considered to be the disability identification expert of the team (NASP, 2010). This instrumental case study investigated school psychologists' experience of identifying SLDs in urban schools and how they make sense of the process. This study was conducted with school psychologists who have at least five years of experience and currently work in an urban school in Cuyahoga County. Seven school psychologists from six districts consented to participate in this study. Participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire and two semi-structured interviews, answering interview questions to address the following primary research questions: (1) What resources and existing knowledge do school psychologists draw on in the processes of SLD identification; and (2) What challenges occur for them in the SLD identification process. Participants identified themes regarding resources and existing knowledge that they use during the identification process as well as challenges related to their training, professional development, team dynamics, school and community resources, the legal definition of SLD, inconsistent application of policy, and SLD guidance and policy during this study. These findings highlighted the need for changes to university-level educator training programs, professional development, and community outreach and inclusion, as well as the need to recommit to students' right to a Free Appropriate Public Education.

Committee: Tachelle Banks (Committee Chair); Anne Galletta (Committee Member); Shereen Naser (Committee Member) Subjects: Continuing Education; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Educational Psychology; Special Education

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2020, Educational Studies

There is consensus around the fact that quality of teaching is one of the most important school-level factors to influence student achievement at school. Evidence from research suggests that better-qualified teachers can be the determining factor for student achievement and development (Jordan et al., 1997; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright et al., 1997). Therefore, policy makers advocate for ongoing improvements in teacher quality variables, in which the implementation of a well-designed teacher evaluation system has been found to be one of the most effective ways to improve teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Looney, 2011; Rockoff & Speroni, 2011). The case of Chile is a particularly interesting example of a teacher evaluation system since its implementation, a validation process that has included not only the experience and documentation regarding the process, but also a comprehensive agenda regarding the validity and reliability of the instrument and evaluation consequences (Taut & Sun, 2014). The purpose of this dissertation is to contribute to the body of research on the evidence of the validity of Chilean teacher evaluation. Specifically, I focus on one of the teacher evaluation instruments: the portfolio. Through the portfolio, teachers provide evidence of their best practices in three modules: a set of pedagogical materials, video recording class, and collaborative work (not mandatory). In order to accomplish this goal, I use the data from the portfolio results of the 2017 Chilean National Teacher Evaluation (N = 21,982). I use descriptive statistics, exploratory confirmatory factor analysis (ECFA), and factorial invariance to assess the structure of the portfolio across different teacher subgroups: teachers with and without the collaborative work module score, rural/urban teachers, and six different teaching levels. I also compare the theoretical weight assigned to each one of the portfolio indicators with the empirical data. Finally, I evaluate if the (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Jerome D’Agostino (Advisor); Jessica Logan (Committee Member); Shayne Piasta (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Tests and Measurements

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Leadership Studies, Xavier University, 2019, Leadership Studies and Human Resource Development

This mixed-methods study explores and describes the perceptions of public school principals and teachers who participate in the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) model. The study examines different types of post-observation feedback delivery and the content of feedback provided by principals to teachers. This study sought to explore the perceptions that teachers and principals have about certain types of post-observation feedback delivery (verbal, written, both, or other) and the content of feedback (Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric) with respect to impacting instructional practices in the classroom. In the interest of improving instructional practices in classrooms, it is important to understand better the relationship between teachers' and principals' perceptions of post-conference feedback, and whether the method of delivery or content of feedback is perceived as having more of an impact on changing instruction in the classroom. This research study shed light on four themes identified through principal interviews. The themes were as follows: Time, Selecting Content Feedback, Delivering Content Feedback, and Monitoring Instructional Changes. These themes became apparent during the study, through interviewing principals. The study found about one-half to two-thirds of teachers reported a subjective sense that how feedback was delivered influenced the likelihood of implementing instructional changes. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant relationship between the form of feedback delivery and the likelihood of teachers actually making instructional changes. However, the research data supported that the majority of teachers are making instructional changes following post-observation conferences. Slightly fewer than two-thirds of teachers in the study reported that the changes they made in their classrooms were the result of the content of feedback they received from their principal. Chi-square analysis revealed an overall corresponde (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Shirley Curtis Ed.D. (Committee Co-Chair); Gail F. Latta Ph.D. (Committee Co-Chair); David Tobergte Ed.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Leadership; School Administration; Secondary Education; Teaching

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2019, Music

The professional development of teachers is an ongoing process of learning that is essential to their personal and professional growth and plays a significant role in students' achievement and success. The purpose of this study was to examine how participation in a peer review and assessment program catalyzed changes in teachers' attitudes, beliefs, and practices as a part of their professional growth. Specifically, the study examined how participation in a peer review and assessment program catalyzed music teachers' professional growth (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Stanley, 2009). Nine music teachers were interviewed in this case study of a peer review program designed for the review and assessment of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and set in a large urban Midwestern school district in Ohio. The peer review program presented a unique opportunity to examine the capacity for music teachers' professional growth in varied contexts as teachers created and applied measurable student learning targets. Five key themes emerged from the findings: a) attitudes of resistance resulting from reviewee's misinterpretations of the SLO process and its purpose; b) advocacy for music teaching for the purpose of teaching and learning with clarity; c) asset-based vs. deficit ideology in which teachers examine standards for student achievement in urban settings; d) reflection and review upon individual teacher's practice; and e) enacting the role of reviewer as policy enactor, to enforce the authenticity and rigor of the content-specific initiative. Findings hold implications for: (a) informed peer review planning; (b) teacher evaluation; and (c) effective professional development linked to collaboration.

Committee: Julia Shaw PhD (Advisor); Jan Edwards PhD (Advisor); Antoinette Miranda PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Evaluation; Fine Arts; Music; Music Education; Teacher Education

EdD, University of Cincinnati, 2018, Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services: Urban Educational Leadership

This qualitative interview, group level assessment methodology-based, and self-reflection study examined the phenomenon of teacher evaluation from the perspectives of teachers within a local school district serving several suburban communities situated in the metropolitan area of Cincinnati, Ohio, as well as from the professional perspective of the researcher. The rationale for this research study came about as a response to the emergent trend in the United States of implementing of new professional performance evaluation systems within K-12 public education focused on teachers. Absent from the development of these new professional performance evaluation systems was the presence of teacher voice within their development. Research study findings consistent across a review of the literature, thematic analysis of two rounds of interviews of eight teachers, followed by a group level assessment activity with two teachers, and a self-reflection by the author of this research study suggested central themes associated with teacher voice consisting of Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation, Evaluation Validity and Reliability, and The Role of Mentoring in the Context of Evaluation. The implications of these themes suggest several potential areas for additional inquiry and action on local as well as state policy fronts. These include providing additional balance and support for the principal as evaluator and instructional leader, improving alignment between evaluators' professional backgrounds and the teachers they evaluate, expanding mentoring and related support for teachers, promoting greater awareness of inequities within professional relationships and practice, and focusing political action and advocacy to give teachers voice within current and future professional performance evaluation policy decisions.

Committee: Miriam Raider-Roth Ed.D. (Committee Chair); Mary Brydon-Miller Ph.D. (Committee Member); William Gary Pack Ed.D. (Committee Member); Constance Kendall Theado Ph.D. (Committee Member); Vicki Plano Clark Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Evaluation

PHD, Kent State University, 2018, College of Education, Health and Human Services / School of Foundations, Leadership and Administration

This study examined the teacher evaluation process that exists within virtual schools. Teachers who serve learners in virtual settings utilize a myriad of technology to provide students with learning environments. There is limited research regarding the teacher evaluation process that exists within virtual schools. Current research does not show how teacher evaluations are conducted based on the characteristics and the setting that exists for virtual schools. Virtual schools present unique characteristics; therefore, this study examined how school leaders navigate the teacher evaluation process in virtual schools. There was reason to believe that the teacher evaluation process was unique within an electronic setting. School leaders are responsible for conducting teacher evaluations for faculty within their school communities. This study examines current practices in evaluating teachers in virtual settings in the United States to better understand evaluation processes and practices.

Committee: Mark Kretovics Dr. (Committee Chair); Richard Ferdig Dr. (Committee Member); Boske Christa Dr. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Educational Sociology; Educational Technology; School Administration; Secondary Education; Teacher Education; Technology

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2018, Leadership Studies

The majority of teacher contracts in the State of Ohio are based on the traditional pay scale, rewarding teachers for educational level attained and years of experience. Performance-based pay is an emerging trend with 11 school districts in Ohio identified as having a performance-pay system in their negotiated agreement. This study utilizes Ohio's similar district methodology to identify the two most similar districts without performance-pay for each performance-pay district. This causal-comparative study compares these two groups by their student (performance index scores, value-added scores) and teacher (evaluation ratings) performance obtained from their local school report card. Data was analyzed utilizing t-tests of independent samples and t-tests of paired samples, with no significant differences between the two groups. The type of performance pay, as identified by Willis and Ingle (2016), were analyzed with regards to student and teacher performance differences. Performance rates are the type of performance pay that appears to have the most positive effect on student and teacher performance.

Committee: Paul Johnson (Committee Chair); Pavel Anzenbacher (Committee Member); Rachel Reinhart (Committee Member); Chris Willis (Committee Member); Kyle Ramey (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Education Finance; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Educational Tests and Measurements

Specialist in Education (Ed.S.), University of Dayton, 2017, School Psychology

Parental involvement in education improves students' learning and development (Reece, Staudt, & Ogle, 2013). In spite of this, a number of barriers exist - particularly in low-income, urban areas - which discourage or prevent parents from becoming actively involved. Thus, the current study examined the effectiveness of a parental involvement program, as perceived by stakeholders, in increasing parental involvement in one urban, elementary, charter school. A summative program evaluation was completed; data were gathered through (n = 48) parent/guardian and (n = 10) teacher and school administrator surveys. Results indicated that stakeholders hold neutral perceptions of the overall effectiveness of the Classroom Parent Community (CPC) program. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Committee: Susan Davies Ed.D. (Committee Chair); Elana Bernstein Ph.D. (Committee Member); Robert Stoughton M.S. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education

Doctor of Philosophy, Miami University, 2017, Educational Leadership

In 2012-2013, Ohio introduced a teacher evaluation system that replaced many district-created systems. The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) incorporates quantitative student achievement data to a greater extent, a greater number of ratings classifications, more tangible consequences for teachers, requires a more extensive time commitment for evaluators, and relies more heavily on widespread uniform interpretation and implementation than most of its predecessors. This mixed-methods study investigates the ways in which OTES has reshaped principals' approaches and perceptions toward evaluation. Quantitative data, from three years of OTES evaluations, does not indicate that principals' evaluation ratings are influenced significantly by either of two policies unique to OTES – one policy that allows principals access to some (and only some) teachers' quantitative ratings well in advance of submitting a qualitative rating, and another policy that allows highly-rated teachers to be evaluated less frequently in subsequent years. Qualitative data, from interviews with principals, reveal mixed perceptions about OTES' ability to improve teacher practice and accurately reflect individual teacher effectiveness.

Committee: Andrew Saultz Ph.D. (Committee Chair); Thomas Poetter Ph.D. (Committee Member); Michael Evans Ph.D. (Committee Member); Kate Rousmaniere Ph.D. (Committee Member); Sheri Leafgren Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Educational Tests and Measurements

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 1977, Graduate School

Committee: Not Provided (Other) Subjects: Education

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 1973, Graduate School

Committee: Not Provided (Other) Subjects: Education

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), University of Findlay, 2016, Education

Education reformers are calling for increased accountability for the nation's public schools. Teacher evaluation has experienced a shift in focus from what teachers do to accomplish the task of teaching to student growth as a result of what teachers do in the classroom (Achieve, Inc., 2007). Additionally, a connection between teacher job satisfaction and quality of education in the classroom has been identified (Hall, Zinko, Perryman, & Ferris, 2009). The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine if increased accountability measures found in the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) impacted teacher job satisfaction. The research was conducted through a three-part survey which included a demographic section, questions from the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, and questions specifically related to the OTES. The survey was sent to Ohio K-12 public education superintendents and principals to be forwarded to teachers. Survey participation was voluntary and all participants were anonymous. A total of 290 completed responses were submitted. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations were performed on the data. The data suggested the OTES did not significantly impact teacher job satisfaction. Additionally, the findings indicated components of the OTES did not significantly impact teacher job satisfaction. A disparity was found between the data and open-ended comments made by the participants. Recommendations for future research include accessing a statewide database to increase the size of the sample and conduct the study again in the future to determine if the results were due to the design of the OTES or to change in general.

Committee: Kathy Crates Dr. (Committee Chair); Jon Brasfield Dr. (Committee Member); Rahman Dyer Dr. (Committee Member); Williams Nicole V. Dr. (Committee Member); John Gillham Dr. (Advisor) Subjects: Education; Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), University of Dayton, 2016, Educational Leadership

The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) was created in response to the 2009 House Bill 1 mandate requiring the development of a state teacher performance assessment. This study examined K-12 public school teachers' dispositions toward OTES after the first year of implementation. Data were collected from 142 teachers over a 4-week period in 2015 using a 17-item survey with Likert-type responses. Findings revealed teachers' overall dispositions were considerably more negative than positive; specifically 86% of the respondents had a negative or moderately negative disposition toward the state model. With respect to specific aspects of OTES, the three most positive dispositions concerned individualized staff development, principal compliance with OTES, and walk-through observations. The three most negative dispositions concerned the amount of time required of teachers, infusing student value-added scores, and infusing vendor assessment scores. The levels of association between the criterion variable (a teacher's overall disposition toward OTES) and each of three predictor variables (gender, years of teaching experience, and grade level assignment) were small and negative. Collectively, the three predictor variables accounted for only 4.5% of the variation in the criterion variable. The findings have both professional and political implications. Most notably, negative dispositions reported in this study, especially those pertaining to the infusion of student assessments into teacher performance evaluations are highly controversial. Professionally, for example, many scholars, administrators, and teachers challenge the reliability, validity and fairness of using these measures. Politically, for example, policymakers should consider the negative dispositions in terms of improving existing policy. Accordingly, recommendations for improving OTES policy and for future research were made.

Committee: Theodore Kowalski Ph.D (Committee Chair); C. Daniel Raisch Ph.D (Committee Member); Carolyn Ridenour Ed.D (Committee Member); Teresa Thompson Ph.D (Committee Member) Subjects: Education Policy; Educational Evaluation; Educational Leadership