Impact Assessment of The Effectiveness of The 2+2 Performance Appraisal Model by Sandra A. Lininger

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE 2+2 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MODEL
by
Sandra A. Lininger
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
January 2006
UMI Number: 3206560
UMI Microform 3206560

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Sandra Lininger, 2006
Abstract
One of the difficulties in providing opportunities for performance improvement in charter
schools is aligning the traditional teacher evaluation tools to an alternative educational
delivery system. The methods for performance appraisal that are in place in most traditional
school systems are not easily adaptable to nontraditional teaching settings and, therefore, do
not provide clear direction for professional development. The purpose of this study was to
assess the effectiveness of the 2+2 performance appraisal model as the formal appraisal
process for teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter School, specifically
addressing the areas of employee performance improvement. Through document research
and personal interviews, the following areas were the focus of assessment: (a) Content
Knowledge, (b) Classroom Management, (c) Professional Conduct, and (d) Interpersonal
Relationships. The research questions were as follows: (a) How was the 2+2 Performance
Appraisal Program implemented? (b) What difference did the 2+2 Performance Appraisal
Program make? And (c) What were staff perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of the
2+2 performance appraisal model? The project utilized the participatory action research
methodology. Data collection consisted of evaluation of 2+2 performance appraisal model
assessments administered throughout the Yuba City Charter School over the past 3 years,
follow-up interviews, and summative reports completed by the participants. This study
provided evidence that the 2+2 performance appraisal model was effective as the formal
appraisal process for teachers and classroom aides, addressed the areas of employee
performance improvement, provided a link between what teachers were doing and what
could be done to improve, adapted to an alternative educational setting and led to more
communication and less teacher isolation.

Dedication
To my children, Micah and Shari.
You are my heroes.
You are smart, funny, caring, passionate, and genuine.
Let the Light of Truth light your path.
Let the Ray of Hope warmly shine upon you.
Let the Gift of Knowledge show you the way.
Let True Love always be your motive.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the staff members of Yuba City
Charter School for their support and assistance throughout this process. Your value is
immense. Susan Lominac and Nicole Rehnborg will share in any accolades received for this
work. Their contributions led directly to its content and completion. Your tireless work on
my behalf is greatly and genuinely appreciated. Dr. Alyce LeBlanc and Dr. Dwight Allen are
to be commended for their work on behalf of all in education reform in the United States and
around the world. Their development of the 2+2 performance appraisal model will continue
to contribute to educational improvement. The contributions of my committee have been
invaluable. Dr. Barry Persky, Dr. James Lutz, Dr. Catherine James and Dr. Valerie Abad all
provided insight and input that added both depth and breadth to the reporting of this study.
Finally, Dr. Mary Dereshiwsky, our beloved Mary D, has a place in many hearts as she
guides and encourages, cajoles and encourages, provides feedback and encourages; generally
bringing learners from students to scholars. Thank you, Mary, for moving me, not just
through this process, but moving my heart to believe in myself.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Background of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 6
Research Design 7
Definition of Terms 7
Assumptions and Limitations 10
Organizationof the Remaining Chapters of the Proposal 11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Introduction 12
Education Reform 12
Teacher Evaluation 19
Professional Development 25
Teacher Knowledge 27
v
Teacher Classroom Management 29
Teacher Professional Condcut 30
Teacher Isolation and Empowerment 32
Participatory Action Research 33
Summary 35
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 37
Introduction 37
Description of Methodology 37
Design of the Study 38
Sample and Population 39
Instrumentation 39
Data Collection 40
Data Analysis 40
Limitations 40
Summary 41
CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 43
Introduction 43
The 2+2 Imlementation Plan 44
What Difference Did the 2+2 Make? 63
Data Collection 63
Personnel 65
vi
Classification 69
Grade Level 81
Observation Category 89
Quarter 96
What Were the Benefits and Drawbacks of the 2+2 Model? 98
Chapter Conclusion 106
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107
Introduction 107
Discussion 108
Conclusions 110
Individual Distribution 113
Classification Distribution 113
Grade Level Distribution 114
Equal Distribution 115
Content 115
Related Studies 116
Recommendations for Practical Application 118
Implications 120
Recommendations for Future Related Research 121
Critical Reflections 122
REFERENCES 123
vii
APPENDIX A. INTRODUCTION LETTER 134
APPENDIX B. 2+2 STAFF DEVELOPMENT IDEAS 137
APPENDIX C. 2+2 PHRASE BOOK 144
APPENDIX D. TEACHING STANDARD HINT CARDS 177
APPENDIX E. 2+2 OBSERVATION FORM 179
APPENDIX F. ADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2 180
APPENDIX G. DISADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2 183
APPENDIX H. HOW THE 2+2 COULD BE BETTER 186
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Implementation Plan 46
Table 2a. Actual Implementation 47
Table 2b. Actual Implementation 48
Table 2c. Actual Implementation 49
Table 3. Consensus of Areas of Concern 50
Table 4a. Four Areas of Concern 51
Table 4b. Four Areas of Concern 52
Table 4c. Four Areas of Concern 53
Table 5a. Staffing Ideals 54
Table 5b. Staffing Ideals 55
Table 6. Student Performance Support 59
Table 7. Brainstorming 2+2 61
Table 8a. Number of Observations per Year per Employee 67
Table 8b. Number of Observations per Year per Employee 68
Table 8c. Number of Observations per Year per Employee 69
Table 9. Number of Observations Given by Year by Classification 73
Table 10. Number of Observations Received by Year by Classification 74
Table 11. Giver Classifications of Personnel by Year 76
Table 12. Receiver Classifications of Personnel by Year 77
Table 13. Number of Observation by Year by Classification 78
ix
Table 14. Classifications of Personnel by Year Totals 80
Table 15. Staffing at Grade Levels per Year 82
Table 16. Observations by Grade Level 84
Table 17. Observations Given by Grade Level 86
Table 18. Observations Received by Grade Level 88
Table 19. Observation Categories 94
Table 20. Number of Observations per Quarter 97
Table 21. 2+2 Overall Grade 99
Table 22. Themes of Advantages 102
Table 23. Themes of Disadvantages 104
Table B1a. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 137
Table B1b. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 138
Table B1c. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 139
Table B1d. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 140
Table B1e. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 141
Table B1f. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 142
Table B1g. Synthesis of Responses to2+2 Evaluation 143
x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Four quadrants of success. 56
Figure 2. Student success zone. 57
Figure 3. Student achievement elements. 58
Figure 4. Number of staff members at percentage levels of participation. 66
Figure 5. Percentage of observations given by classification 2004-2005. 73
Figure 8. Percentage of observations received by year by classification 2004-2005. 75
Figure 11. Giver classifications of personnel by year 2004-2005. 76
Figure 14. Receiver classifications of personnel by year 2004-2005. 77
Figure 17. Number of observation by year by classification 2004-2005. 79
Figure 20. Classification of personnel by year 2004-2005. 80
xi
Figure 23. Number of staff members by grade level by year 2004-2005. 83
Figure 26. Number of observations by grade level by year 2004-2005. 84
Figure 29. Number of observations given by grade level by year 2004-2005. 86
Figure 32. Number of observations received by grade level by year 2004-2005. 88
Figure 35. Compliments 2004-2005. 94
Figure 38. Suggestions 2004-2005. 95
Figure 41. Observations per quarter 2004-2005. 97
xii
Figure 42. Observations per quarter 2003-2004. 98
Figure 43. Percentage at each grade. 100
Figure 44. Theme percentages. 102
Figure 45. Disadvantage themes. 105
xiii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction
There is no question that education reform must occur in the United States. Even in
sectors that argue that education in America is good, they agree that given all of the
advantages America enjoys, her education should be great. Research reports such as “A
Nation at Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and “What Matters
Most: Teaching for America’s Future” (Darling-Hammond, 1996) confirmed a perspective
that the educational system in the United States was in dire need of repair and, perhaps,
complete renovation. A continuing decline in test scores indicates that the United States is
lagging far behind other developed countries in math and language scores on standardized
tests (Staff, 2004). Parents are often dissatisfied with their children’s education. Legislators
complain of the lack of accountability for the public money spent on education. These
realizations have resulted in various kinds of reform efforts, from local level reforms such as
longer school days and smaller class size to the comprehensive mandates of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Two very significant reforms are in the areas of teacher
quality and parent choice in terms of alternative educational settings for their children.
For many years, teachers have proclaimed their understated value in the educational
process, complaining that there has been a lack of importance placed on the job that they do.
Recent research has revealed that this outcry was justified. The research has shown that of
the most significant factors determining the quality of a child’s education, teacher
effectiveness was near the top of the list (Lloyd Yero, 2001). This has put the question of
2+2 Performance Appraisal 2
teacher quality in the spotlight of reform efforts. Historically, teachers had the privilege of
autonomy in their classrooms, determining, with little outside input, what would be taught,
and with little accountability in terms of evaluating whether they had succeeded. This
environment has changed. State and Federal educational standards have replaced the
teacher’s discretion in content and performance.
The state of California boasts some of the most detailed and rigorous education and
teaching standards in the nation. Officials have delineated what students should know and be
able to do as a result of having been taught for 10 months in a particular grade level for each
academic subject. High stakes testing of the children provide the quality assurance that these
objectives have been performed satisfactorily by the teacher. Teacher evaluation and teaching
professional development are tools utilized to ensure that teachers continue to be equipped to
do the job. In order to be effective, there must be a link between evaluation and feedback and
the professional development the teacher receives (Wenglinsky, 2002). The 2+2 performance
appraisal model, developed by Dr. Dwight Allen and Dr. Alyce LeBlanc, potentially provides
this link.
The 2+2 performance appraisal model is an alternative appraisal system. The 2+2
model requires school staff members to list two compliments and two suggestions for each
observation. The frequency of the observation is an integral part of the model by providing
continual feedback at regular intervals which promotes professional development.
A reform effort, that of parental choice in education, has produced the most heated
debate in the reform movement. What has been politicized as a debate between the “haves”
and the “have nots” has resulted in a reform effort that gains momentum with each passing
school year, the public charter school movement.
The outcry by the “have nots” has been that the wealthiest in our nation did not
recognize the urgency of the public education situation in the United States for the simple
fact that their children are often not educated in public schools. They have had the luxury of
parental choice due to their privileged economic status. In private sector educational
institutions, there exists an inherent mechanism for quality control of market demanded for
excellence. Dissatisfied parents can take their educational dollars elsewhere. The “have nots”
have argued that they do not have the same ability with their educational dollars which are
tied up in tax money spent by the “haves” on their behalf.
This debate has resulted in a demand for parental choice in alternative educational
settings for those that cannot afford private education. From Magnet Schools to vouchers,
there has seemed to be no reform effort that provides parental choice but keeps intact the
existing system that provides a safety net for all children. Many of the suggested reforms
have threatened to undermine the stability of the local neighborhood school. Particularly
heated has been the debate over vouchers which provide public dollars to parents who want
to enroll their children in private schools. The church and state separation issues alone keep
the debate afire with contention.
Public charter schools are coming to the forefront as the compromise solution that has
been needed. Submitted under the same authority as traditional public schools, charters
provide that alternative setting with the same state and local accountability. Charter schools
are publicly funded, therefore; educational dollars are moved around but are not removed
from a system that is already in trouble. They provide true competition to traditional schools
because, by and large, they must play by the same rules.
Statement of the Problem
One of the difficulties in providing opportunities for performance improvement in
charter schools is aligning the traditional teacher evaluation tools to an alternative
educational delivery system. The methods for performance appraisal that are in place in most
traditional school systems are not easily adaptable to nontraditional teaching settings and,
therefore, do not provide a link between what a teacher is doing and what could be done to
improve. What is not known is if the 2+2 performance appraisal method can replace
traditional evaluation methods as the formal evaluation method for teachers and classroom
aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter School.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 2+2 performance
appraisal model as the formal appraisal process for teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at
Yuba City Charter School, specifically addressing the areas of employee performance
improvement. Through document research and personal interviews, the following areas were
the focus of assessment: (a) Content Knowledge, (b) Classroom Management, (c)
Professional Conduct, and (d) Interpersonal Relationships.

Background of the Study
Yuba City Charter School is a public charter school located in Yuba City, California,
45 miles north of the state capital of Sacramento. Though the area remains agricultural in its
character, Yuba City is rapidly losing its rural nature and is becoming a bedroom community
to downtown Sacramento and the surrounding urban area. Yuba City Charter School was
developed by a parent group comprised of educators and noneducators.
The mission of the Yuba City Charter School is to equip urban and rural students
between the ages of 5-18 in Sutter/Yuba County Region with the two kinds of literacy
necessary in the 21st century—the ability to read, write, speak, and calculate with
clarity and precision and the ability to participate passionately and responsibly in the
life of the community. The Yuba City Charter School will promote positive personal
character, strong work ethics, and an education that enables all students to reach their
highest levels of achievement to become exemplary citizens with life-long respect for
learning, democratic values and recognition or understanding of world-wide diversity
in order to meet future challenges. (Lininger, 2000, p. 8)
Yuba City Charter School in its’ endeavor to provide excellence in education as
indicated by the mission statement, has the goal of continuous performance and
improvement. The NCLB legislation has indicated a direct correlation between teacher
evaluation and teacher quality improvement. Yuba City Charter School has provided
performance appraisals since inception, but all traditional teacher evaluation methods have
proved to be ineffective. To evaluate the efficacy of teachers in an alternative delivery
system, there remained a need to find a performance appraisal tool that could adapt to an
alternative setting. Peer coaching and self reflection are two methods that are incorporated in
the 2+2 performance appraisal model that will adapt to an alternative instructional delivery
system.
Research Questions
The research question of this study replicated those posited by Dr. Alyce LeBlanc
(1997) in her recent study evaluating the efficacy of a 2+2 of the PRIDE program of
Massachusetts. They are as follows:
1. How was the 2+2 Performance Appraisal Program implemented?
2. What difference did the 2+2 Performance Appraisal Program make?
3. What were staff perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of the 2+2
performance appraisal model?
As indicated by Dr. LeBlanc in her study, these questions were “intentionally open
ended,” which makes for a research project that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p. 13).
Significance of the Study
The stakeholders in this study were the California charter school community, Yuba
City Charter School teachers, classroom aides, the administration, and, secondarily, the
parents and educational communities involved. Additionally, findings from this study may be
of particular interest to K-12 administrators in alternative education settings such as charter
schools, continuation schools, and court schools, with regard to the utilization of the 2+2
performance appraisal model for in-service classes, peer review, and self-assessment. The
findings may be relevant to the educational community with respect to alternative assessment
for employee performance improvement.

Research Design
The 2+2 project utilized the participatory action research methodology. Data
collection consisted of evaluation of 2+2 performance appraisal model assessments
administered throughout the Yuba City Charter School over the past 3 years, follow-up
interviews, and summative reports completed by the participants.
This researcher served as the school administrator at Yuba City Charter School for
the duration of this study. As such, the researcher began implementing the 2+2 performance
appraisal model 3 years ago and has been involved with the program since its inception.
Definition of Terms
2+2 performance appraisal model. An innovative appraisal model designed to
support substantial instructional reform through frequent classroom observations by
administrators, peers, and students who offer two compliments and two suggestions for
improvement at each observation.
Charter school. An experimental public school for kindergarten through grade 12;
created and organized by teachers, parents and community leaders; operates independently of
other schools, often with a curriculum, instructional delivery protocol, and educational
philosophy that is different from other schools in the system.
Collaborative culture. Characteristics of a collaborative culture are trust, openness,
lack of defensiveness, support, and tolerance of a diversity of viewpoints within a basic
agreement on values developed over time within a teaching staff. Collaborative cultures are
committed to continuous improvement, and look to external, as well as internal sources for
ways to improve (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).
Participatory Action Research (PAR). Applied research that has at its heart learning-
by-doing. Known also as teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993), action research
(Winter, 1987), reflective practice (Schon, 1983, 1987), and practice-as-inquiry (Newman,
2000), the varying names reveal the nature of an emerging qualitative study method.
Peer coaching. Peer coaching, an extension of peer observation, is a nonevaluative
five-step process involving (a) requesting a visit, (b) conducting a visit, (c) reviewing notes,
(d) talking after visit, and (e) conducting a process review (Gottesman & Jennings, 1994).
Peer observation. In this study, nonvaluative observations of teachers by teachers for
the purpose of giving feedback, leaving teachers to make their own judgments about how to
improve their teaching (Barber, 1990).
Peer review. “Peer review is a process in which teachers use their own direct
knowledge and experience to examine and judge the merit and value of another teacher’s
practice” (Peterson, 1995, p. 100).
Performance appraisal. Used interchangeably with teacher evaluation.
Restructuring: Fundamental, rather than superficial change in schools, “Restructuring
activities change fundamental assumptions, practices, and relationships, both within the
organization and between the organization and the outside world, in ways that lead to
improved and varied student learning outcomes for essentially all students” (Conley, 1997, p.
8).
Systemic reform. Fundamental school reform encompassing a wide range of
interrelated issues, notably curriculum, teacher collaboration and empowerment, changes in
organizational structures, parental involvement, and instructional practices; often used
interchangeably with restructuring.
Teacher collaboration. Sustained peer coaching, observation, action research, team
teaching, interdisciplinary planning, and a willingness to engage in collective commitment
and improvement; often used interchangeably with collegiality; for the purpose of this study,
it refers only to conditions where teachers can enter into strong relationships of professional
discourse, not to superficial social relationships.
Teacher efficacy. “A person’s perceived expectation of succeeding at a task or
obtaining a valued outcome through personal effort; efficacy for teachers is based on their
perceived ability to affect students’ learning” (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991, p. 191).
Teacher empowerment. The engagement of teachers in the change process, with
“authority to plan and monitor the quality of the educational process in their schools”
(Eisner, 1992, p. 616). Areas of control can include curriculum, assessment, and teaching
practice.
Teacher evaluation. The evaluation of the value, merit, or worth of a teacher’s
teaching, often through a limited number of classroom observations by a single administrator
for the purpose of protecting children, reassuring teachers that they are doing a good job, and
making personnel decisions; often said to be used to improve teaching practice as well
(Peterson, 1995).
Teacher evaluation system. The particular standard evaluation procedure used
uniformly in a school district.
Teacher isolation. Teacher isolation is the lack of communication, collaboration, and
contact among teachers due to the circumstance of being alone with students for nearly the
entire professional workday. Giving and receiving feedback and professional and reflective
discussion is, thus, severely inhibited.
Assumptions and Limitations
1. Research was completed in a rural western United States environment;
therefore, no attempt should be made to generalize these findings to any other
geographical regions.
2. Participation in this study was limited to employees of the Yuba City Charter
School and, as such, the findings will not reflect that of the nation as a whole.
The degree to which different individuals were included in the 2+2 model
varied based upon when they were hired by the Yuba City Charter School.
3. As an action research project, modifications in the implementation of the 2+2
performance appraisal model are made continually. No attempt was made to
offer a summative evaluation, as the model will continue to be ongoing.
4. The charter school itself is a limitation, not an environment for extrapolation,
in that it is a nontraditional educational setting and instructional delivery
system. Therefore, findings that are extrapolating from this study may not be
applicable to a traditional educational system.

5. The final limitation is that the study was conducted in a single suburban
charter school in California where the researcher is employed, possibly
limiting participation to like-minded individuals who are drawn to alternative
educational settings.
Organization of the Remaining Chapters of the Proposal
This chapter serves as an introduction to the subject. The remaining chapters will
contain information as follows: chapter 2 summarizes relevant literature dealing with teacher
evaluations; chapter 3 details the methodology that was used for the study. Chapter 4
presents the findings of the study; and chapter 5 offers conclusions of the study,
recommendations for action based on the findings, and suggestions for future research.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The 1993 report “A Nation at Risk,” by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, lent credibility to the opinion that was shared by educators and noneducators
alike: the nation’s schools were failing. This report became the springboard for new reform
movements. The reform movement, now more than 2 decades old, has gained momentum
over time. The specific areas of inadequacy are pointed out and these inadequacies in the
educational system in the United States have led to a thrust toward greater accountability by
the educational community. The significance of the performance appraisal of teachers has
increased as the quest for accountability in education has grown. Legislation introduced and
passed at the state and federal level acknowledges the recognition that teacher performance is
part of the problem in education (Smylie, 1996) and, therefore, part of the solution (Darling-
Hammond, 2000). This review of the literature provides a theoretical framework in which to
position this study.
Education Reform
American education is innovation. But, in order for innovations to become
institutionalized, there must be “a good match with the politics, culture, and economics of the
school, district, or state” (Conley, 1997, p. 17). To understand reform, one must first
understand the context of education.

The latest reform efforts in public education in the United States have their genesis in
the late 1970s. A nationwide recession revealed that the American economy was in trouble.
The concern for American education that was sparked in the 1950s when the Soviet Union
launched Sputnik, indicating that America lagged behind in the space race, was ignited into
flames in the 1970s. Civic leaders raised concerns that our public schools were not keeping
pace with other developed nations in science and technology education (U.S. Congress,
1995). New jobs that were created by developments in information technology demanded
skilled workers. These new workers would need to be skilled in problem-solving, used to
working collaboratively, and creative enough to change rapidly as the world changed
(Drucker, 1993; Gelberg, 1997).
The high school diploma was sufficient for the industrial worker but not for the
worker of the new economy (Marshall & Tucker, 1992). There was a decrease, from 40% to
15%, in the number of jobs held by people who lacked a high school diploma in the 20 years
between 1969 and 1989 (U.S. Department of Labor, 1994). By 1992, college graduates were
two times more likely to be employed than high school graduates (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 1996). Science and math scores continued to decline with
American students scoring near or at the bottom when compared with other industrialized
nations (Conley, 1997). The public was demanding changes in education.
The quality of American education was the focus of the report, “A Nation at Risk:
The Imperative for Educational Reform,” written by the presidential task force assembled in
the early 1980s (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report
claimed, “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising
tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, p. 7). Recommendations from this report motivated
federal legislation, particularly the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA under the name, Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Many
perceive the publication of “A Nation at Risk” as the catalyst that began the standards-based
movement in education. The Goals 2000 Act proposed “to promote coherent and coordinated
improvements in the system of education throughout the Nation at the State and local levels”
(Title III § 302, ¶ 1). Goals 2000 demanded change.
The Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) was the reauthorization of the ESEA
(P.L. 103-382). IASA ushered in a whole new focus for educational reform, that of standards,
assessment and accountability.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 replaced IASA (P.L. 107-110). Accountability was
the new battle cry. The new law required the development of content and performance
standards in every state. The achievement progress of every student would be monitored
more closely by increased assessment. These assessments would be the foundation of state
performance accountability. This accountability would extend beyond historically measured
numbers to account for the performance of students in specific population strands namely,
disadvantaged and minority students. States that did not show improvement in all groups
would face sanctions.
The response from inside of the educational community has been mixed and
apprehensive, with all sectors endeavoring to make the changes needed to comply with the
law (International Reading Association, 2005). Many states with large immigrant populations
are facing an uphill battle. Schools are required to educate all children at the same level, but
the English language learners are all starting at different points, making a level playing field
an impossibility. The result of the reform effort has been the proliferation of educational
alternatives. One such alternative is the charter school.
The charter school movement has roots in a number of reform ideas from alternative
schools to site-based management, magnet schools, public school choice, privatization, and
community-parental empowerment. The term charter probably originated in the 1970s when
New England educator Ray Budde suggested that small groups of teachers be given
contracts, or charters, by their local school boards to explore new approaches. Albert
Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, publicized the term with
the idea that school boards could charter whole schools with union and teacher approval. In
the late 1980s, Philadelphia started a number of schools-within-schools, calling these new
creations "charters." The idea was further refined in Minnesota where charter schools were
developed according to three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for results
(Bulkley & Fisler, 2002).
The number of schools operating under charter school laws has increased during the
last decade from a small number operating in just a few states to more than 2,695 schools
serving over 575,000 students in 41 states and the District of Columbia in 2003 (Center for
Education Reform).
Charter schools are designed as autonomous schools of choice that operate under a
charter or contract issued by a public entity such as a local school board, public university, or
state board of education. These contracts, usually lasting 3 to 5 years, provide school
operators autonomy. They enjoy more freedom, but also are held to a higher standard of
accountability. Charter school laws vary in terms of their components and in the intentions of
policymakers when they were adopting them (Buechler, 1996; Lake & Millot, 1998;
Wohlstetter, Wenning, & Briggs, 1995), but the very nature of accountability calls into play a
high standard in all areas of the school’s performance. Continual improvement is the goal of
all charters. This continual improvement necessitates a performance appraisal tool that
motivates sound practices of professional development and improvement in the staff.
Teaching Standards
Reports such as “A Nation at Risk” and legislation such as No Child Left Behind
have highlighted evidence of low student performance. The focus of reform efforts has
moved from student output to concerns about the preparation of teachers and the adequacy of
schools (Darling-Hammond, 1997).
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) published a
report in 1996, “What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future” (NCTAF, 1996). The
following recommendations were made by NCTAF:
Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers; reinvent teacher
preparation and professional development; fix teacher recruitment and put qualified
teachers in every classroom; encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill;
create schools that are organized for student and teacher success. (NCTAF, 1996, p.
1)
Keeping teachers current on knowledge and skills through regular professional development
was an overreaching recommendation.

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) supports the
standards developed by NBPTS for national certification of outstanding teachers, the
standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC) for beginning teacher certification and the new standards for teacher education
programs adopted by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
At least 12 states have established professional standards boards that are accountable for
developing preservice and continuing teacher certification standards. These boards are
separate from the state boards of education and are an outgrowth of the NCATE standards
(ASCD, 2001).
Many states now require adherence to teaching standards and competencies for
certification. California has established six standards for state certification, including the
requirement to demonstrate reflective practice, ability to develop personal professional
growth plans, and an ability to work collegially (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing [CTC], 1997). California has also developed a 10-step professional
development plan, Designs for Learning, that includes the requirement that teacher learning
activities be meaningful, promote continuous inquiry and reflection, and provide for
collaboration (CTC).
The standards for credentialing new teachers in California were revised in 1997. The
California New Teacher Project (CNPT) and the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA) programs helped to create these standards based on federal recommendations. The
CTC presented the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) as a guide for
teachers. These standards reflect the fact that California teachers are "serving the most
diverse population of students in the history of education" (CTC, 1997, p. 4). The CTC stated
that teachers must be “responsive to the needs of the inclusive classroom in which students
with varying learning styles and abilities, from diverse cultural, racial, religious, ethnic,
linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds, are to be engaged and challenged as learners”
(p. 4). These standards encourage first and second year teachers to continue their
development through “intensive learning activities that build on their preservice preparation
and lead to lifelong professional development” (p. 4). The CTC standards are to be used by
teachers to “guide, monitor, and assess the progress of a teacher's practice toward
professional goals and professionally accepted benchmarks” (p. 4). The California standards
relate to six categories of teaching practice: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning; Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning;
Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning; Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for All Students; Assessing Student Learning; Developing
as a Professional Educator.
California teachers are required to be in a continual process of improvement
throughout their careers. The standards provide a framework for feedback. As the process of
improvement is continuous, the process of evaluation and feedback needs to be continuous.
Traditional models of teacher evaluation fall woefully short of meeting this task. The 2+2
performance appraisal model is uniquely qualified to provide regular, real-time, feedback.
The teacher, then, is able to get just-in-time professional development in continued
professional improvement. This is supported by the research of S. Griswold who stated,

“Utilizing the 2+2 approach aligned with teaching competencies for feedback is an effective
means for guiding professional development” (2004, p. 142).
Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation is not new. Teacher evaluation has been around as long as
education has existed in the USA. As the world has changed over time, teacher evaluation
has continued to evolve. Through many movements and phases, the role of the teacher has
changed. And, as values and beliefs about successful teaching and teacher obligations have
changed and perceptions of how students learn have changed, teacher evaluation has evolved.
Cuban (1990) offered insight about these changes and how such changes have affected
teacher evaluation. He reminds us that the heart of teacher evaluation may depend upon the
views that educators hold at any given point in time about student learning. Tracing the
history of teacher evaluation gives us a glimpse into the world of a particular era.
Teacher evaluation was essentially defined from a moralistic and ethical perspective
for teachers of the early 1900s. Outstanding teachers were pillars of the community who
were scrutinized as possessing high moral and ethical standards. They usually had basic
reading skills (preferably at the high school level) and they were good role models for their
students. Usually they were unmarried women with less than a high school education. Good
moral standing in the community was the central point of the evaluation. Instead of being
concerned with the teacher’s ability to teach, the evaluation was focused on her character and
behavior (Hamilton Peterson, 1982).

In the 1920s through the 1940s, this character evaluation of teachers took on a more
scientific approach, incorporating the emerging Freudian psychology and the
psychoanalytical movement. Evaluation focused on the personality characteristics, as defined
by the science of psychology that embodied a “good” teacher. There was, however, a
growing interest in identifying and better understanding factors contributing to the education
and training of prospective teachers. Several national studies of teacher characteristics and
teacher education programs were conducted (e.g., Charters & Waples, 1929). In the early
1940s, teacher evaluation frameworks began to appear in the literature (e.g., the Ohio
Teaching Record). By the end of the 1940s, popular texts contained ideas about teacher
evaluation (e.g., Beecher, 1949).
Teacher behavior and student performance became the focus of classroom research
with the influence of Taylor’s Scientific Management in Education (e.g., F. Taylor, 1947).
Behaviorism in psychology and education prompted educational researchers to begin to
narrow their focus on linkages between teacher behavior and student outcomes. Identifying
effective teaching methods became the objective in educational research in the 1950s and
1960s. “Researchers began to turn their attention to linkages between observable teaching
practices (behaviors) and a variety of student outcomes” (Ellett & Teddlie, 2005, p. 9).
Sputnik, the cold war, and international politics contributed to a concentrated focus
on classroom-based research. There was a national outcry for an identification of effective
teaching methods, particularly in math and science classrooms. Collections of the measures
that resulted from the classroom checklists that were developed at this time began to appear
in the educational research literature (e.g., Simon & Boyer, 1967). Discussions of
methodology issues surrounding classroom observations and evaluations of teaching also
began to appear in the literature (see, for example, Medley & Mitzel, 1963).
After 2 decades of research, the issue at hand was defining teaching as either an art or
a science. The debate among leading researchers and theorists in the field of teacher
education and teaching effectiveness focused on the extant research findings for the
preparation of effective teachers (e.g., Gage, 1972). There was also an increasing emphasis in
teacher evaluation literature on the use of direct observations of teaching as the methodology
of choice (Rosenshine & Furst, 1973). The researchers began linking observations and
evaluations of teaching to student learning and achievement (e.g., Stallings, 1977). Models
for direct instruction, such as those developed by Madeline Hunter, also began to appear.
They made their way into teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation literatures as the
models were popularized as the answer to effective classroom teaching. Classroom-based
studies in the 1970s sought to demonstrate linkages between various teaching practices and
student outcomes. Summaries of the findings of research on teaching were produced (e.g.,
Duncan & Biddle, 1974; Flanders, 1970). This kind of research on teaching became known
as “process-product” research (Medley, 1977).
The battle cry of the 1980s became “education reform.” The demand for reform
touched almost every aspect of education. The educational changes and alternatives ranged
from school-based management and licensing of teachers and administrators to restructuring
schools from a variety of perspectives. The differing perspectives varied but included
increasing teacher empowerment and parental involvement in schools; establishing various

incentives-based programs for schools, teachers, administrators and students; charter schools;
school voucher plans, and so on (Villegas-Reimers & Reimers, 2000).
In the 1980s, education reform revived terms that had been around, but took on new
meaning and new impact. Words such as evaluation and accountability became the
buzzwords of the movement. From educational accountability in the 1970s through the use of
criterion-referenced, state-mandated minimum competency testing programs for students
(Berk, 1984; Jaeger & Tittle, 1980; Pipho, 1978) and student-centered versus teacher-
centered models of reform (Cuban, 1990), teacher evaluation became a focus of educational
accountability and reform in the 1980s. Through extensive research there was a much
broader awareness of the forms of teacher evaluation in the 1980s (e.g., Darling-Hammond,
Wise, & Pease, 1983; Ellett, 1985, 1987; Ellett & Capie, 1982, 1985; Iwanicki, 1986;
McLaughlin, 1990; McLaughlin & Pfeifer, 1988; Medley, Coker, & Soar, 1984; Millman,
1981; Millman & Darling-Hammond, 1990; Scriven, 1988; Stufflebeam, 1988). The
juxtaposition of evaluation and reform focused on understanding the educational, social and
political contexts of teacher evaluation.
In the 1980s and into the 1990s, efforts in educational reform and educational
improvement began to focus on the performance of the classroom teacher. Politicians and
policy makers saw increased accountability on the simplest level as a solution since teachers
had more direct contact with students than any other element in the educational system.
Through 3 decades of research, the link between teacher performance and student outcomes
became clear and a set of criteria for evaluation began to emerge (Brophy, 1986, 1988; Gage
& Needels, 1989).

One significant shift in evaluation came with state level intervention into the process.
Formerly, school and district level goals were the impetus. In the 1980s, a general lack of
trust that school and district level administrators could provide the criteria necessary to
appropriately evaluate the efficacy of teachers became pervasive. The trend moved from the
lifetime credential to a 5-year renewal process with required evaluation and professional
development required at the state level (e.g., Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup, Garland, Ellett, &
Rugutt, 1996). A large body of literature provided ammunition for policy makers at the state
level to frame the conceptions of what should be at the forefront in thinking about
educationally meaningful and useful teacher evaluation systems. The development and
implementation of large-scale, politically motivated, state-mandated programs targeting
teacher accountability and school improvement were implemented nationwide, but only
remnants of most of these programs survive today, and most have, through the lobbying of
self-interestedly motivated groups, been politically overhauled, minimized/or disbanded
(Cuban, 1990).
Reformers continue to maintain teacher evaluation as a significant aspect of
educational reform initiatives. Teacher accountability, professional development, and school
improvement rest at the most basic level of schooling, the classroom teacher. The concerns
about teacher retention, recruitment, evaluation, and retention in the profession, coupled with
a renewed focus on school site professional development of teachers, grounded in classroom-
based assessments, ensure that the focus of teacher evaluation will remain at the forefront of
reform. With the requirements of NCLB and the national push for professional certification,
federal licensure of teachers is the next thrust that educators are facing.
There is sure to be a resurgence of research in the area of teacher evaluation as
educators strive to understand and meet the new demands for accountability. One example of
the response to the NCLB requirements is the Consortium for Research on Educational
Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE) requesting proposals for papers and
panels to be presented at the 14th Annual National Evaluation Institute (NEI, 2005). The
purpose of the Institute is to disseminate information about the theory, research, and best
practices of evaluation in the areas of educational accountability; assessment; educational
policy; school and classroom practices; and technology, as these areas influence school and
program effectiveness, student learning, and staff performance in schools and colleges.
Educational Evaluation: Responding to the Challenges of NCLB and Accountability is the
theme of the Institute (NEI, 2005).
Charter schools are the innovation of the educational reform movement. They and the
laws that authorize them are being evaluated. There is a tremendous amount of research
being done about the efficacy of charter schools in impacting education reform. The literature
is becoming available at a rapid pace. However, there is scarce literature on the evaluation of
the classroom teacher in a charter school, many of whom deliver education in an alternative
setting or using an alternative delivery system. Traditional teacher evaluation does not work
in an alternative environment. In the climate of reform, there exists a need for a
nontraditional evaluation system for nontraditional instructional delivery situations.

Professional Development
Professional development for teachers is a recent development in American
education. Joyce noted in 1990, “Until as recently as 15 years ago, very few school districts
acknowledged their responsibility for the academic, social, or clinical health of their
personnel” (p. xv). Prior to the 1970s, Universities were the only providers of in-service
education. The graduate-level course work, and its expense, was the teacher’s responsibility.
As school districts and county offices of education become involved, the variety and
frequency also increased. The quality of the offerings came into question and university
researchers became interested in a new avenue of study. By 1990 staff development had
become a legitimate field of inquiry. The ASCD issued the 1990 yearbook (Joyce, 1990),
which clearly defined this new research opportunity. This development would ultimately lead
to improved outcomes for students. In the last decade there has been a marked increase in the
body of research on the professional growth and development of teachers. The next section
focuses on what current research tells us about professional development strategies.
School districts, county offices of education, educators, researchers, and Universities
all want to ensure that teachers are able to meet the demands of higher standards. High-
quality teacher professional development has developed in the educational literature as a
foundational issue. Characteristics of high-quality teacher professional development have an
increased emphasis to educators and researchers.
The findings from the national Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional
Development Program presented in Does Professional Development Change Teaching
Practice? Results from a Three-Year Study state that

Professional development focused on specific, higher-order teaching strategies

increases teachers’ use of those strategies in the classroom. This effect is even
stronger when the professional development activity is a reform type (e.g., teacher
network or study group) rather than a traditional workshop or conference; provides
opportunities for active learning; is coherent or consistent with teachers’ goals and
other activities; and involves the participation of teachers from the same subject,
grade, or school. (U.S. Department of Education, 2000, p. 60)
However, they also noted
We find that teachers in our longitudinal sample do not typically receive consistent
high-quality professional development: Teachers experience professional
development that varies in quality from one year to the next. Further, teachers in the
same school tend to have quite different professional development experiences. (ED,
2000, p. 1)
Another indicator of the potential achievement of professional development is that
successful professional development is tied to wider school reform efforts. Lieberman and
Miller (1990), Lieberman (1995), Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), and Darling-
Hammond (1999) all stressed the importance of deliberately linking professional
development opportunities to school reform efforts. The resulting professional development
opportunities meet the specific needs of teachers, as opposed to offering unconnected
opportunities that have unclear goals.
The current literature confirms that there is recognition that proper teacher training is
essential to educational reform. A variety of stakeholders have become involved in
developing and disseminating high-quality professional development. The National Staff
Development Council, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the National
Education Association have all authored mission statements and standards for professional
development.
Federal, State and local governments have also become increasingly involved in the
development of professional development opportunities. In general, the federal government’s
commitment to strengthening teachers’ skills is reflected in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Act, which prioritizes strengthening teacher quality, allows LEAs the flexibility to use
funds to improve teacher training and increase teacher pay.
Teacher Knowledge
Describing teacher knowledge is a difficult proposition. Robert Orton stated that
One could argue that there is little of interest about teacher knowledge that can be put
into discursive form. This is not to disparage or belittle the skill of teaching. It is to
suggest that trying to relate this skill to something thata teache r knows is difficult or
impossible. All that can be done is to describe how some individuals are incredibly
successful at getting their students to learn. (2005, pp. 1-2)
A discussion of teacher content knowledge is an important topic in dealing with a
research study on appraisal. Shulman (1986) described teacher content knowledge in three
categories: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c)
curricular knowledge. The first area looks at the subject itself. For example, a teacher who
knows long division knows the subject. Pedagogical content knowledge speaks to knowing
how to teach long division. It is not enough just to know how to do something, but equally
important for teachers to know how to teach it. Curricular knowledge deals with a teacher’s
knowledge, about which Shulman said
The curriculum is represented by the full range of programs designed for the teaching
of particular subjects and topics at a given level, the variety of instructional materials
available in relation to those programs, and the set of characteristics that serve as both
the indications and contraindications for the use of particular curriculum or program
materials in particular circumstances. (1986, p. 5)
Allan Feldman asked, “Where does their knowledge originate?” and, more
specifically, “What are the ways in which teachers' knowledge about teaching and their
educational situations grow when they are engaged in collaborative inquiry about their own
practice with other teachers?” (1994, p. 2). These are thought-provoking questions with
regard to how performance appraisal impacts staff development, specifically how the 2+2
appraisal model opens the opportunity for teacher knowledge to be transferred from teacher
to teacher. There is little available research that examines the origin of teacher knowledge
(Grossman, 1988; Hashweh, 1987; Wilson, 1988). There has been scant research and writing
in the area of teachers’ knowledge of teaching. Therefore, “it has significance for teacher
educators and policy makers as they engage in the current debate on how best to prepare
teachers, and on the working conditions that most effectively foster their continuing
intellectual and professional development” (Feldman, p. 2). Consider how teachers gain
knowledge; Feldman suggested
I learned much of what I know about teaching, as have many teachers, through
conversations with other teachers in my department, school, and at regional and
national meetings of professional societies; participation in in-service programs,
workshops, institutes and post-graduate course work; and through readings of the
professional and research literature; as well as through individual inquiry and
reflection, and deliberation about moral and political dilemmas. In my work with the
Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP), I saw novice teachers' knowledge and
understanding grow through course work, and through the collaborative action
research that they did as part of their training. These observations seem to indicate
that a significant source of teachers' knowledge is their interaction with other
teachers. (p. 2)
Teacher Classroom Management
Many teachers assume that students learn social skills at home. In today’s school
environment, this is not necessarily the case. So often, students come from broken homes or
other adverse environments where parents either do not or cannot help their children conduct
themselves acceptably in public.
Some kids know (intellectually) what to do, but they've never (physically) done it
before. It is difficult for all of us to all-of-the-sudden display a completely different
behavior than we've been showing for years. Changing a habit is no easy task.
(McIntyre, 2005, p. 5)
Lack of appropriate training at home creates a situation where teachers many be expecting
children to behave in ways they may be incapable of behaving, thus leading to classroom
management difficulties.
Edwards (1994) suggested that teachers are taught that good teachers handle
classroom control in the classroom. This is verified by the attitude that administrators
display. Administrators like teachers who do not send students to the office for disciplinary
problems. This is interpreted by teachers as good classroom control. This can further
exasperate teachers with regard to their knowledge and skills in classroom management. The
following research will explore the components of and how to achieve good classroom
management.
The teacher’s ability to control a class is entirely dependent on how the students
choose to respond. Students’ ability to participate in a learning community is critical. Ideally
they would be transferring social skills learned outside the classroom into the classroom.
Unfortunately, in today’s society, many students come to school seriously lacking in these
skills (Smith, 1995). It becomes the responsibility of the teacher to teach these skills, foster a
learning community, and deliver content.
Many teachers believe that the goal of classroom control is discipline. In emphasizing
control to such a degree, it is “often seen by educators as more important than the learning
that goes on the classroom” (Edwards, 1994, p. 340). Unfortunately, teachers are not well
trained in effective discipline methods (Harper & Epstein, 1989). Classroom control is more
than discipline.
There has been substantial debate as to the relationship between self-esteem and
performance by children in education. Although a positive correlation between
achievement and self-esteem would seem logical, there has been considerable
research which questions whether this correlation actually exists. (Kohn, 1994, p. 3)
Discipline is viewed by administrators and teachers as the number one problem in
classrooms but teacher colleges are still failing to prepare their student teachers to face this
situation. Many teachers feel unqualified for the task of classroom discipline when they start
their first teaching job (B. W. Taylor, 1987). Suffice it to say that teachers can benefit by
communicating with one another, which is easily accomplished through the 2+2 appraisal
model.
Teacher Professional Conduct
Recently, there have been numerous studies on teacher conduct. Examples include
Barr and Dreeben (1983), Carroll (1963), Jackson (1968), and Smyth (1985). In these studies,
researchers reported remarkable effects of teacher conduct on a particular student outcome,
adding to the body of knowledge that teachers do make a difference.

Interestingly, it is how teachers’ conduct fosters moral agency in students that has
become the focus of study. Earlier literature dealing with the idea of fostering moral agency
is found in articles and books focusing on the moral dimensions of teaching (Devries & Zan,
1994; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990; Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993).
Fenstermacher (1990) and Hansen (1999) argued that teaching is a moral activity. Hansen
discussed his reasoning behind this belief:
Studies suggest that teaching is inherently a moral endeavor. Moral matters do not
have to be imported into the classroom as if teaching were itself devoid of moral
significance. According to the literature, it is not the introduction of an externally
defined set of conditions, issues, or actions that determines whether teaching is or is
not moral in meaning. Rather, the activity of teaching is itself saturated with moral
significance, and it is so in ways that illuminate both the beneficial and the harmful
influence teachers can have on students. (pp. 1-2)
Further, Ayers stated
Teaching is more than transmitting skills; it is a living act, and involves preference
and value, obligation and choice, trust and care, commitment and justification....All
teaching, consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, deals, therefore, with
two questions: What knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile? And, what are
the means to strengthen, invigorate, and enable each person to take full advantage of
those worthwhile experiences and that valuable knowledge?...The dizzying diversity
of human experience and capacity alone demands that teachers look deeply at our
students, that we see them as creatures like ourselves and yet unique in important
ways. This is a central challenge of teaching, and it is essentially a moral challenge; it
cannot be resolved by referring to fact or to empirical data alone. (1993, pp. 20-21)
Teachers’ conduct has a considerable influence on how students learn to conduct
themselves. It is important to recognize that students see teachers making moral decisions
throughout the day. Is the teacher punctual? Does the teacher dress appropriately? Does the
teacher get along well with others? Does the teacher’s life display honesty and integrity?
Does the teacher interact with their peers with character? These examples are character
issues. If educators want students to behave with character then they will also have to behave
in the same manner. The 2+2 performance appraisal model allows teachers to observe each
other and to provide feedback on issues of character. Often, as seen in studies on 2+2, issues
of character surface.
Teacher Isolation and Empowerment
For decades, teachers in traditional and alternative schools have felt isolated
(Flinders, 1988; Jersild, 1955; Lortie, 1975; Waller, 1932/1965). In many school settings,
collaboration amongst teachers is almost nonexistent. Reasons for this include busy
schedules, too many classes, and too many students for teachers to take it upon themselves to
formally collaborate with colleagues. A foundation for collaboration that is informally based
will only have temporary effects. Part of the 2+2 performance appraisal model is the
collaborative nature of the observations. Teachers, regardless of how busy they are, are
required to observe at least two other staff members per month. Fullan suggested, “A shared
purpose—be it concrete or evolving—helps create a sense of camaraderie” (1993, p. 16).
Furthermore, research revealed that teacher self-efficacy is a critical component of
school reform, thereby requiring schools to provide means through which teachers and staff
can gain clarity regarding role expectations (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Woolfolk, in a 2004
interview, stated, “Teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching—their perceptions about their own
capabilities to foster students’ learning and engagement—has proved to be an important
teacher characteristic often correlated with positive student and teacher outcomes” (as cited
in Shaughnessy, 2004, p. 3). Woolfolk revealed that the work she and Hoy had “focused
primarily on developing a model of efficacy that reconciles some of the seeming

inconsistencies in early research and on designing survey instruments for assessing both
individual teacher’s efficacy judgments and teachers’ sense of collective efficacy” (as cited
in Shaughnessy, p. 2).
Finally, teacher empowerment is an important factor to consider because current
school reform efforts have evolved to include school restructuring. For example, efforts to
see schools as communities and teachers as members of professional communities presume
that teachers are prepared to identify problems and willing to take risks to solve those
problems (Kruse, 1996; Kruse & Louis, 1993; Marks & Louis, 1999). Supporting the
significant association between teacher empowerment and school welfare, Marks and Louis
found that empowerment greatly affected the capacity of organizational learning in schools.
Participatory Action Research
“If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself” may sound like a
truism, but such is the foundation of participatory action research. The research becomes an
integral part of the research project. Rory O’Brien defined action research as
Research that aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an

immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science
simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system
and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing to what is
together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the
active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus stressing the importance of co-
learning as a primary aspect of the research process. (1998, p. 161)
Action research has many names including participatory research, collaborative inquiry,
emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual action research. Action research is
learning by doing.
Winter (1989) argued that what gives action research its unique flavor is the set of
principles that guide the research. He provided a comprehensive overview of six key
principles:
1. Reflexive critique—An account of a situation, such as notes, transcripts or

official documents, which makes implicit claims to be authoritative, i.e., it
implies that it is factual and true. Truth in a social setting, however, is relative
to the teller. The principle of reflective critique ensures that people reflect on
issues and processes and make explicit the interpretations, biases,
assumptions, and concerns upon which judgments are made. In this way,
practical accounts can give rise to theoretical considerations.
2. Dialectical critique –Reality, particularly social reality, is consensually

validated, which is to say it is shared through language. Phenomena are
conceptualized in dialogue; therefore, a dialectical critique is required to
understand the set of relationships both between the phenomenon and its
context and between the elements constituting the phenomenon. The key
elements to focus attention on are those constituent elements that are unstable,
or in opposition to one another. These are the ones that are most likely to
create changes.
3. Collaborative Resource—Participants in an action research project are co-

researchers. The principle of collaborative resource presupposes that each
person's ideas are equally significant as potential resources for creating
interpretive categories of analysis, negotiated among the participants. It strives
to avoid the skewing of credibility stemming from the prior status of an idea-
holder. It especially makes possible the insights gleaned from noting the
contradictions, both between many viewpoints and within a single viewpoint.
4. Risk—The change process potentially threatens all previously established

ways of doing things, thus creating psychic fears among the practitioners. One
of the more prominent fears comes from the risk to ego stemming from open
discussion of one's interpretations, ideas, and judgments. Initiators of action
research will use this principle to allay others' fears and invite participation by
pointing out that they, too, will be subject to the same process, and that,
whatever the outcome, learning will take place.
5. Plural Structure—The nature of the research embodies a multiplicity of views,

commentaries, and critiques, leading to multiple possible actions and
interpretations. This plural structure of inquiry requires a plural text for
reporting. This means that there will be many accounts made explicit, with
commentaries on their contradictions, and a range of options for action
presented. A report, therefore, acts as a support for ongoing discussion among

collaborators, rather than as a final conclusion of fact.
6. Theory, Practice, Transformation—For action researchers, theory informs

practice, practice refines theory, in a continuous transformation. In any
setting, people's actions are based on implicitly held assumptions, theories,
and hypotheses, and, with every observed result, theoretical knowledge is
enhanced. The two are intertwined aspects of a single change process. It is up
to the researchers to make explicit the theoretical justifications for the actions,
and to question the bases of those justifications. The ensuing practical
applications that follow are subjected to further analysis in a transformative
cycle that continuously alternates emphasis between theory and practice.
(Winter, 1989, pp. 43-67)
As the founder and superintendent of the Yuba City Charter School, the researcher
had a stake in the overall success of the 2+2 performance appraisal model implementation.
Through the process of conducting participatory action research, the researcher was able to
make necessary changes to the program as they occurred, rather than waiting until the end of
the study. The responsibility to do right by the staff and students in the study was of utmost
concern. Every effort was made to provide a flexible platform upon which changes were
readily made to accommodate the needs of staff and students.
Summary
The existent literature provided the foundation for the 2+2 study. It supported the
rationale for a much needed expansion into the research of alternative appraisal methods. The
effectiveness of the 2+2 performance appraisal model as the formal appraisal process for
teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter School, specifically addressing the
areas of employee performance improvement will add to the body of knowledge concerning
teacher performance appraisal. The focus of the study—(a) Content Knowledge, (b)
Classroom Management, (c) Professional Conduct, and (d) Interpersonal Relationships—will
provide much needed insight in the literature.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Description of Methodology
The researcher utilized a participatory action research methodology design.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is conducted primarily to improve one’s own
educational practice from a personal, professional, or political perspective. Research
conducted from a personal perspective may seek to develop a greater understanding of one’s
own students, classroom environment, educational strategies, or self-awareness. Presentation
of research results will be via a staff development project, a published contribution to the
field of educational theory and research, and through a program aimed at promoting
collegiality and professionalism (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
The role of the researcher in PAR differs from that of the scientific observer who is
utilizing impartial methods in that the researcher is an active participant, often conducting
research within her or his own classroom or school. The results of the study are usually
obtained to promote the acquisition of knowledge in an area that may be applied to the
specific situation with the intent of improving a certain condition, strategy, or program. Data
collection in action research often utilizes both qualitative and quantitative data. The
information gained may be reported in an informal manner, such as a conference presentation
or brief report. A PAR focuses on practical findings to improve the situation involving the
immediate research problem (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
Cyclical in nature, PAR designs gain and apply knowledge, progressing through six
stepsin a continual sequence, as new themes develop. A six -step approach to PAR design
may be: (a) focus selection, (b) data collection, (c) data analysis and interpretation, (d) action
implementation, (e) reflection, and (f) modification or continuation of action (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2003). PAR studies provide a unique and insightful perspective into real-world
applicability for the researcher. The results of the study have application in the researcher’s
own environment. A researcher can continue a process until significant progress had been
made to correct a problem.
This study utilized the researcher’s own school environment to implement the 2+2
performance appraisal model to determine if the 2+2 model is an effective means for
encouraging reflection and self- assessment to guide professional development plans.
Design of the Study
Participants were introduced to the 2+2 performance appraisal model in a group
meeting held prior to the implementation of the assessment. Participants were given the
opportunity to practice using the 2+2. The participants were assigned to conduct two 2+2
observations and written responses each month. The researcher participated as would any
other staff member in the 2+2 activities. At the close of each school year, the participants
were assigned to reflect on the 2+2s in which they participated, and conduct summative
reports of their findings. They were then asked to develop a professional development plan
based on the feedback they received.
The following research questions guided the 2+2 PAR study: (a) How was the 2+2
performance appraisal model implemented? (b) What difference did the 2+2 performance
appraisal model make? and (c) What were staff perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of
the 2+2 performance appraisal model?
Sample and Population
The participants were the teachers and classroom aides from a K–12 public charter
school in northern California with a total staff population of 50. All teachers and classroom
aides were invited to participate in the study.
Instrumentation
The 2+2 is an assessment system that offers to a peer reviewer, instructor, or
supervisor a method for assessment based on writing two positive comments and two
suggestions per topic or competency (Allen & LeBlanc, 2005).

Data Collection
The researcher utilized the conducted 2+2s, the summative reports, information
gathered at a 2+2 in-service and the professional development plans, together with personal
interviews to collect data for this study.
The question of validity in PAR studies can be addressed through five criteria: (a)
outcome validity, (b) process validity, (c) democratic validity, (d) catalytic validity, and (e)
dialogic validity (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The researcher will respond to all five types of
the validity criteria.
Data Analysis
The collected 2+2 data were coded into the four focus areas of professional
development; content knowledge; classroom management; professional conduct; and
interpersonal relationships. Triangulation of the data was achieved by conducting personal
interviews and staff development group meetings. Descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted in this research study, utilizing Microsoft Access and Excel software packages.
Questions were asked of the participants in order to gather qualitative data on their opinions
of the implementation of the 2+2 model.
Limitations
1. Research was completed in a rural western United States environment;
therefore, no attempt should be made to generalize these findings to any other
geographical regions.
2. Participation in this study was limited to employees of the Yuba City Charter
School and, as such, may not reflect results that may be obtained from similar
research conducted elsewhere in the nation. The degree to which different
individuals were included in the 2+2 model varied significantly, depending
upon when the employee was hired by the charter school.
3. As an action research project, modifications in the implementation of the 2+2
performance appraisal model were made continually. No attempt will be made
to offer a summative evaluation, as the model will be ongoing.
4. The charter school itself is a limitation, not an environment for extrapolation
in that it is a nontraditional educational setting and instructional delivery
system. Therefore, extrapolating findings from this study may not be
reflective of those that may result from a similar project conducted in a
traditional educational system.
5. The final limitation is that the study was conducted in a single suburban
charter school in California where the researcher is employed, possibly
limiting participation to like-minded individuals who are drawn to alternative
educational settings.
Summary
This study addresses the misalignment of traditional teacher evaluation tools to an
alternative educational delivery system. The methods for performance appraisal that are in
place in most traditional school systems are not easily adaptable to nontraditional teaching
settings and, therefore, do not provide a link between what a teacher is doing and what could
be done to improve. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 2+2
performance appraisal model as the formal appraisal process for teachers and classroom aides
(K-12) at Yuba City Charter School, specifically addressing the areas of employee
performance improvement. Through participatory action research the researcher will add to
the body of knowledge concerning alternative performance appraisal methods and their
applicability in an alternative educational setting.

CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
Introduction
Yuba City Charter School (YCCS), specifically addressing employee performance
improvement. Through document research and personal interviews, the study focused on the
following areas:
1. Content Knowledge;
2. Classroom Management;
3. Professional Conduct; and
4. Interpersonal Relationships.
This chapter presents the findings and results of a study in which the 2+2 model was
implemented at YCCS. The research questions of the study replicated the questions posited
by Dr. Alyce LeBlanc (1997) in her recent study evaluating the efficacy of using the 2+2
model in the context of the PRIDE program in Massachusetts. The research questions were
as follows:
1. How was the 2+2 performance appraisal model implemented?
2. What difference did the 2+2 performance appraisal model make?
3. What were staff members’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of the
2+2 performance appraisal model?

The implementation of the model began with a design plan and was carried out step-
by-step. The use of action research methodology allowed changes to be made to the
implementation of the model based on alterations that were required for process
improvement. This chapter details the proposed plan, the way it was actually implemented,
the data collected from the participants and the data collected from the 2+2s that were
conducted. Data from in-services and interviews with participants are also included. The
following section describes the plan as it was proposed and the implementation of the plan as
it actually took place.
The 2+2 Implementation Plan
Design of the Study
The project used participatory action research methodology. Data were collected
through 2+2 performance appraisal model assessments administered throughout the YCCS
over 3 years, as well as follow-up interviews and summative reports completed by the
participants.
Year 1
According to the implementation plan, the 2+2 was to be introduced and implemented
according to the Implementation Plan detailed in Table 1. In year one, participants would be
introduced to the 2+2 Performance Appraisals system. Following the introduction, it was
planned that participants would be instructed to use the 2+2 model. The practice was to
consist of participants conducting a self 2+2 appraisal and requesting that one of their peers
conduct a 2+2 appraisal on them. At the end of year one an in-service was planned to give
instruction, receive feedback and conduct planning for the full implementation of 2+2 in the
next school year. During this 2+2, in-service staff members were to be asked to give
feedback on the objectives and goals of using 2+2 in the school.
Year 2
In the plan, the 2+2 was to be reintroduced to staff members at the annual pre school-
year in-service in year two. Staff members were instructed to conduct two 2+2s per month.
At the close of the school year staff members would then be asked to reflect on the 2+2s they
received. They would be asked to create a summative report of their reflections. From this
summative report they would produce a professional development plan.
Year 3
In year 3, a general announcement of the 2+2 requirement at the annual pre school-
year in-service was planned to take place. All controls involved in promoting 2+2 would be
removed. Though many steps in the plan were carried out in the actual implementation, the
flexible nature of the action research methodology allowed the plan to be changed
continuously to accommodate process improvements.

Table 1.
Implementation Plan
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1. Participants introduced 1. Reintroduce staff 1. Announcement of 2+2

to 2+2 members to 2+2 requirement
2. Practice 2+2 2. Do two 2+2s per month 2. Remove controls
3. Conduct an in-service 3. 2+2 reflection

on 2+2
4. Summative report of
4. Get staff members’ feedback
feedback on objectives
5. Produce professional
development plan
Actual Implementation
The way the 2+2 performance appraisal model at YCCS was actually implemented is
outlined in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. In January 2003 (year 1), an introduction to the staff
members took place, following an in-service about Good to Great by J. Collins (2001). The
speaker, Pastor Dave Bryan, a motivational speaker, challenged the staff members that the
need for improvement did not diminish the fact that they had done and were doing a “good”
job, but rather that their goal was to be doing a “great” job. He quoted the book Good to
Great in stating, “Good is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we
have so little that becomes great. We don’t have great schools, principally because we have
good schools” (Collins, 2001, p. 3).

Year 1. The call to excellence by the Good to Great in-service was used as a way to
launch the 2+2 performance appraisal model at YCCS. Following the in-service, staff
members received a letter from the superintendent outlining the purpose and method of the
2+2 implementation (see Appendix A). In the letter, Superintendent Lininger explained
To continue the process of continued improvement, I would like to ask each of you to
complete a 2+2 self-evaluation. The information will be used to collect suggestions
for topics for our end of year in-service. The way 2+2 works is to state two things that
you feel you are doing well in your job and two areas for improvement. (2003, ¶ 3)
She used herself as an example of what it might look like. She followed the example with an
instruction that each member if staff respond with their 2+2s via e-mail.
Table 2a.
1. 2+2 was introduced 1. At opening in-service 1. At the opening year 3 in-

staff members were service participants were
introduced to formal given instructions to
process of 2+2 for the conduct two 2+2s per
year month
2. 2+2 was practiced via e- 2. New triplicate form 2. New staff members
mail introduced oriented to 2+2
3. Feedback was compiled 3. forms now routed to staff 3. 2+2s were collected
members, principal, throughout the year
superintendent
4. Staff members asked to 4. Sign in book used 4. No tallies were kept
respond to areas of
desired professional
development
Table 2b.
5. Staff members 5. Tally boards used 5. Participants received only

development designed one reminder in the year
according to responses to do their 2+2s
(good to great)
6. In-service held at end of 6. Phrasebook developed 6. No reflective exercise
year concerning 2+2 with was required (one
Dr. Alyce LeBlanc participant did a 2+2 on
the 2+2 process)
7. Received the feedback of 7. Requirement of two 2+2s 7. No summative report was
staff members on the per month per employee required
objectives of the study
and purpose of 2+2 (data
from in-service—what
the staff members wanted
and valued)
8. 2+2s were collected 8. No professional
throughout the year development was
required
9. Tallies were kept by 9. Administration created a
administrative secretary school-wide staff
development plan
10. Participants were
monthly reminded to do
their 2+2s by the
administration
11. A 2+2 in-service was
held at the end of year 2
12. Participants were given
copies of the 2+2s they
received throughout the
year
13. Participants were asked
to reflect on the 2+2s
Table 2c.

to prepare a summative
report
to prepare a professional
development plan
Seventeen staff members participated in year one, which resulted in a total of 239
observations. Feedback was compiled and coded according to the four focus areas, in
addition to categories for “other” and “blank.”
Staff members were asked to reflect on the 2+2s they developed and received and to
respond by suggesting areas of professional development that they were interested in (see
Appendix B). The administration determined that the data supported the decision that an in-
service concerning 2+2 would be appropriate. Dr. LeBlanc was contacted to conduct the
year-end in-service.
The YCCS staff, like most school staffs, was made up of administrators, teachers,
clerical, custodial, teaching assistants and so forth. Unlike many other schools, the YCCS
employees were all categorized as instructional staff. Receiving individual feedback and
input from all sectors of the staff, therefore, is crucial to the success of the school and any
programs it institutes. In the case of 2+2 it was necessary to get the entire staff “on the same
page.” A 2-day in-service was held at the end of year one to serve this purpose. The
information in this section represents the work of Dr. Alyce LeBlanc (1997), who conducted
the in-service, formally introduced the staff to 2+2. Dr. LeBlanc worked alongside Dr.
Dwight Allen to develop the 2+2 performance appraisal model and to focus its application in
a school setting. This dissertation replicated her research questions; her dissertation strongly
influenced this dissertation. She worked with the YCCS staff to induct them to the 2+2. She
began the in-service with a general discussion of the areas of concern for the school
community. A summary of the consensus of staff can be found in Table 3.
Table 3.
Consensus of Areas of Concern
Teachers Students
Teacher expectation Characteristics

Environment Motivation
Motivation Preexisting conditions
Communication Health
Processing Expectations
Resources Processing/learning styles
Attendance Attendance
Instructional approaches
Parents School
Diet Curriculum
Health Mission statement
Parental involvement Policy and procedures
Resources Attendance
Home environment Facilities
Attendance Resources
Communication School climate
Motivation School culture
Playground
As demonstrated in Table 3, staff felt that there were concerns that were specific to
each segment of the school community. They were summarized into four areas of concern:
(a) curriculum, (b) communication, (c) discipline, and (d) facilities.
The four areas of concern shared by the teachers and the school then became the basis
for the feedback of the 2+2s. The staff divided themselves into five focus groups and each
group developed evaluation 2+2s, two compliments and two suggestions, for all four areas
(see Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c.)
Table 4a.
Four Areas of Concern
Group 1
Curriculum Communication
C – Flexibility C – Point sheet- great too!
C – Aligned to state standards C – Achieved level of communication with
S – Readability parents useful to them and us
S – Split lengthy packs S – Focus more on accomplishments
S – More careful implementation of point
sheet
Discipline Facility
C – Levels C – Access to deli and computer lab
C – In-house suspension C – spaciousness
S – Suspension ramification S – Reconfigure pedestrian and phone
S – Delineate level rewards/ consequences traffic
S – Clearer address and signage
Table 4b.
Group 2
Curriculum Facility
C – High academic standards / state C – Has done well for 3 years, will do
standards better with less students
C – Character based program that is easy to C – Small size of square footage enables
use us to keep our eyes on the students
S – Systematic (timeliness, orderly, one S – Determine and remove source of foul
person in charge) smell
S – Table of contents to include projects S – Hire a full time custodian
and supplies
Communications Discipline
C – Report cards (easy to read, understand, C – High behavior standards
and complete information) C – Quick and decisive
C – Daily communication with home via S – Increase positive reinforcements
point sheets S – Form a consistent detention policy ( cut
S – Publicity (newspaper postings) back on overuse, ineffectiveness)
S – School website and staff members
communications via e-mail
Group 3
Curriculum Facility
C – Challenging C – No lunch room noise
C – State standards C – Quad much better communication
S – Consistent pages per pack S – More grass, blacktop, and seating
S – Grade level appropriate reading level S – More indoor space
Communications Discipline
C – Increase in volume sent home C – More suspensions
C – Office staff members worked hard C – Consistent Saturday school
notifying classrooms of changes S – How can we better reward good
S – Better time and timely communication students?
to classrooms S – More consequences for multiple
S – Critical correspondence needs to be detentions
signed for
Table 4c.
Group 4
Curriculum Facility
C – Packs available with tests and score C – Close to admin
keys + test keys C – Lunchroom/ separation, distinction
C – Grammar, Spanish, reading and writing S – Full-time custodian
S – Latest revision and continuity S – Updated server
S – Establish curriculum for electives S - Student facility (lockers, elective
rooms)
Communication Discipline
C – Great improvement from previous C – Mr. Gregor ISS Calendar
year C – Detention curriculum
C – Point sheets S – ALL teachers responsible for ALL
S – Calendar for school activities and students
events S – Matching calendar for ISS
S – Correspondence in timely manner (staff
members and students)
Group 5
Curriculum Facility
C – Strong phonics based instruction C – Fenced-in playground
C – Math C – Pick-up and drop-off more efficient
S – Complete language arts program, social S – Playground equipment and grass
studies, and science S – Clean up playground/ safety issues
S – Grade/ age level English pack material (glass, pipes, sticks, rocks, asphalt, etc.)
Communication Discipline
C – Good communication through parental C – Support staff have been very helpful
involvement C – Rewarding though levels
C – Attendance ran smoother because of S – Better follow-up with reoccurring
full-time receptionist problem students
S – Better communication and follow-up S – Making standards clear and upholding
with administration them consistently
S – Pertinent information announced
possibly through intercom
The staff determined that in order to carry out the vision of the school and to realize
improvements in the four areas of concern, they would have to establish what constituted an
ideal administrator, teacher, teaching assistant and clerical person. Tables 5a and 5b illustrate
the findings of the four groups; that is, what constitutes an ideal staff member in the four
main areas. The sections on administration and teachers are summarized, but the clerical and
the teacher aides sections are posters, (download and enlarge to view), created by the
presentation groups themselves.
Table 5a.
Staffing Ideals
Administrative IDEAL Teacher IDEAL
Effective communicator Will foster independent learning

Timely communicator Keep students on task
Personal work ethic Keeping students engaged with enthusiasm
Knowledgeable Positive interaction with students
Leadership Monitoring goals, time on task, discipline
Support provided Foster responsibility
Curriculum resources Class atmosphere
Rapport/approachable Parent communication/notes/phone calls
Community liaison Files/records/organization
Organization
Work environment
Facilities and grounds concerned
Follow-through
Student discipline
Consistency
Table 5b.
Staffing Ideals
Clerical IDEAL Teacher Aide IDEAL
The groups all agreed that the focus of concern of the school and the main factor
determining positive outcomes is the success of the students. The next section focuses on the
group findings concerning student achievement. Figures 1, 2 and 3, all depict what the staff
believed was essential to student success.

Figure 1. Four quadrants of success.

Students School
Student
Success
Zone
Parents Teachers
Figure 2. Student success zone.

Curriculum
School Board
Superintendent
Society
Student
Resources Different elements of

Special education motivation
Funding Cultural differences
SST Society
Library Enthusiasm
Tutoring Language problems
Mentoring Peer-expectations
Counseling Achievement
Reading intervention Home/family support
Curriculum Home/school relations
Manipulatives
Student
Achievement
Elements
Environment Assessment
Home Understanding of student
School progress
Cultural State
District
School
Expectations
NCLB
State Standards
Parent expectations
Teacher expectations
Media expectations
Peer expectations
Policies, procedures, rules
(expectations of school)
Figure 3. Student achievement elements.

With student success as the central concern, staff went on to determine what each
group could do to support student success at YCCS. Table 6 summarizes the discussion. The
sections on leadership, support staff and instructional staff represent what staff determined to
be the main groups that provide student performance support. In addition to the students
themselves, the leadership category represents the administration and school board. The
classified support staff members are the secretaries, receptionists, custodial and kitchen staff
and the instructional staff represent the teachers and teacher aides. Among other
responsibilities, all groups were responsible for providing communication and motivation.
Table 6.
Student Performance Support
Leadership Classified support Students Instructional staff
Communication Communication Communication Communication

Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation
Mission Statement Attendance Expectation Resources
Curriculum Resources Character Attitude
Resources Climate Uniforms Classroom culture
Finances Keepers of the vision Obedience Processing method
Leadership Health/diet Respect Teacher expectation
Teaching strategies 2+2 Attendance Keepers of the vision
Law Preexisting 2+2
Keepers of the vision conditions
Facilities 2+2
Policy/procedures
School climate
The 2-day in-service culminated in a discussion of how the school could move from
being a good school to a great school, revisiting the theme of the in-service that launched the
2+2. The staff agreed that effective feedback would aid them in continual improvement. The
discussion moved to the 2+2 and the staff opinion of how useful the process was at
generating that feedback.
The group discussed traditional evaluation and its effectiveness. Employees that had
experienced traditional forms of evaluation shared their thoughts and opinions. YCCS had
previously used two different formal evaluation processes so many of the staff had insights to
share. Dr. LeBlanc directed the discussion to 2+2 and the introduction the staff members had
experienced in year 1. The outcomes of their brainstorming are represented in Table 7. The
table reflects the staff perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages prior to full
implementation of the 2+2 performance appraisal model.
The in-service provided the administration staff feedback on the objectives and goals
they valued as part of the 2+2 process. These results were processed with Dr. LeBlanc in a
private meeting to help focus the administration on the outcomes they would be looking
towards in the coming year. It was determined that the main concerns and goals of all
stakeholders could be met by framing the 2+2 feedback in the California State Teaching
Standards, which would also meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Table 7.
Brainstorming 2+2
Problems of traditional
evaluations Problems of 2+2 Benefits of 2+2
People tend to seize up Time Encourages relationship

Negative vibe Lack of training and Everyone is involved
Phony knowledge Get away from the “gotta
Bogus results Teaching vs. nonteaching in get an A” attitude
Dog and pony show application Building confidence
Frustrating Implications over time— Consistent and regular
Worry about a focus on results? Where is it going? Will Focus on improvement
negatives there be change? Qualifier of competency
Parameters in classroom Multiple feedback
Effectiveness and validity – Peer teacher classroom
Spirit of trust if suggestions are expertise
rejected Helps you become a better
Establish exemplary roles teacher
Practical observations – basics Suggestions are not
for learning center inherently negative
Better understanding of Nonthreatening
colleague roles Focus on growth and
potential of people
Easy
Values someone’s opinion
Forces reflection
Ongoing process
Year 2. At the pre-school-year in-service in year 2, staff members were introduced to
the formal process of the 2+2 performance appraisal model for the year. A sign-in journal
was introduced; staff members were instructed to make entries in the journal when they
conducted a 2+2 and who they observed. Tally boards were strategically located in the office
of the principal and the superintendent to keep totals of who was observed and who did the
observing. They also served as visual reminders to staff members to conduct 2+2s. A 2+2
Phrasebook was developed to aid staff members in making comments focused on
educationally meaningful areas (see Appendix C). Reminder cards of the California State
Teaching Standards (Appendix D) were also distributed to aid the process. The new triplicate
form was introduced (see Appendix E). Forms would now be routed to the staff member, the
principal and the superintendent. Members of staff were instructed that two 2+2s per month
per employee would be required.
The completed 2+2s were collected throughout the year; the administrative secretary
kept tallies. The administration reminded participants to do their 2+2s monthly. A 2+2 in-
service was held at the end of year 2. Participants were given copies of the 2+2s they
received throughout the year. Participants were asked to reflect on the 2+2s. They then
prepared a summative report of their 2+2s. From the summative report they were asked to
prepare a professional development plan.
Year 3. An in- service was conducted at the opening of year 3. Participants were
instructed to conduct two 2+2s per month. New staff members were oriented to 2+2. The
completed 2+2s were collected throughout the year, although no tallies were kept.
Participants received only one reminder throughout the year to complete their 2+2s. No
reflective exercise was required (one participant did a 2+2 on the 2+2 process). No
summative report was required and no professional development plan had to be prepared by
individual staff. The administration created a school-wide staff development plan. Data from
all three years were compiled and coded. A database was created and all data were input and
sorted. Interviews with staff were conducted and interview responses were compiled and
coded. Descriptive information was collected from all participants.
Summary
This section explained the plan for implementing the 2+2 performance appraisal
model in YCCS. The plan, modified to accommodate performance improvement, was
presented. The next section addresses the question, “What difference did the 2+2
performance appraisal model make?” The data collected is presented and analyzed.
What Difference Did the 2+2 Make?
Did the 2+2 performance appraisal model lead to more communication, provide
continual feedback at regular intervals, less teacher isolation, a link between evaluation and
feedback and the professional development, provide a link between what a teacher is doing
and what could be done to improve?
Data Collection
The 2+2 performance appraisal model was introduced in January 2003 as an
alternative to traditional staff evaluation processes. The study commenced with an
introduction of the model. YCCS itself is an experiment; therefore, all concepts that were
introduced are scrutinized. The administration began collecting data for this study
immediately. All the literature that was distributed as an introduction to 2+2 was collected as
well as the 2+2 observations themselves. In year 1, 60 2+2s were collected that resulted in
239 observations. At the close of the 2002-2003 school year a 2+2 in-service was held with
Dr. Alyce LeBlanc as the moderator and teacher. All of the feedback and input from staff
concerning 2+2 was collected.
The 2003-2004 school year began with reminders and prompts about the 2+2. This
information was also collected. The administration set in place several motivators to prompt
staff members about 2+2, such as tally boards and record books. These were also collected at
the close of the school year. Materials, such as a Phrasebook, were developed to help staff
with their 2+2s and were also collected. In year 2, a total of 429 2+2s were collected, which
resulted in 1,717 observations. The 2003-2004 school year closed with an in-service
dedicated to processing the feedback received from the 2+2s. Each staff member was given
tools to evaluate the 2+2s they received and was required to develop a professional
development plan from the feedback. This information was also collected.
The 2004-2005 school year began with an in- service concerning mandated teacher
and staff members training, such as child abuse reporting and blood born pathogens. The 2+2
received a minor introduction, but was not emphasized. The motivators and reminders were
removed. The 2+2 was announced as a requirement for all staff members. In year 3, a total of
348 2+2s were collected that resulted in 1,392 observations.
A total of 837 2+2s were collected over 3 years, which resulted in 3,448 observations.
In addition to the 2+2s, data were collected on the 52 individual participants involved in the
study. The information reported here is extrapolated from this data collection.
Personnel
The administration set the minimum number of 2+2s required each year. In year 1
(2002-2003), each staff member was required to conduct one 2+2 for themselves, which
would result in four observations given and four observations received. The second part of
the assignment was to request that one other staff member conduct a 2+2 for them. This
would result in four more observations received to bring the total to four given and eight
received. The data in Table 7 reveal that 12 employees participated as required. Twelve
employees partially participated and one received 2+2s, but did not participate in conducting
any observations. Eight employees exceeded the requirement. All but 3 employees received
at least four observations. Sixteen staff members received the expected eight observations
with 5 receiving 11 or 12. Two staff members received 16 observations. Twenty staff
members either did not participate or were not present in this year of the study.
In year 2 (2003-2004), each staff member was supposed to conduct two 2+2s per
month for 9 months, which would have resulted in 18 2+2s or a total of 72 observations.
Again, the data in Table 17 illustrates that 9 employees participated with at least the required
rate, all of which exceeded the minimum. Twenty-five employees partially participated,
conducting and receiving 2+2s. Four employees received 2+2s, but did not participate in
conducting any observations. Fourteen staff members either did not participate or were not
present in this year of the study.
In year 3 (2004-2005), the requirement was the same as year 2 with each staff
member required to conduct two 2+2s per month for 9 months, which would have resulted in
18 2+2s or a total of 72 observations. Finally, the data in Table 17 reveal the 2004-2005 data
that indicates 5 employees participated at the required rate with 3 employees exceeding the
requirement. Twenty-nine employees partially participated, conducting and receiving 2+2s.
Eight staff members received 2+2s, but did not participate in conducting any observations
and two employees conducted 2+2s but did not receive any observations. Ten staff members
either did not participate or were not present in this year of the study.
Tables 8a, 8b, and 8c show all observations for all participants of the study over the
three years. Fifty-two staff members participated in the study over a 3-year period at YCCS.
Figure 4 illustrates that three staff participated at 100% with 148 observations or greater.
Two staff came within 10% of that goal with 133 observations or greater. Five came within
20% of the goal with 118 or greater observations. Two came within 30% of the goal with 103
observations or greater. Six came within 40% of the goal with 88 observations or greater.
Staff members that performed at 40% or less did not participate in all 3 years of the study and
therefore were not factored in the total. In the 3-year period, all staff members gave feedback
and all staff members received feedback.
6
5
4
3
2
1
48
9
33
18
03
=8
=7
=5
=4
=2
=1
=1
=1
=1
%
0%
60
50
40
30
20
90
80
70
10
Figure 4. Number of staff members at percentage levels of participation.

Table 8a.
Number of Observations per Year per Employee
02-03 03-04 04-05 Total

Personnel
ID # Given Received Given Received Given Received Given Received
1 11 4 84 80 132 64 223 144

2 4 8 88 60 4 48 96 116
3 16 8 56 48 52 40 124 96
4 8 4 44 64 64 40 116 108
5 8 8 36 52 48 44 92 104
6 4 8 68 60 4 44 76 112
7 8 8 8 8 52 48 68 64
8 8 12 48 44 4 44 60 100
9 16 16 56 48 20 48 92 112
10 8 4 84 48 100 28 192 80
11 9 8 80 32 76 72 165 112
12 N/A 68 44 48 44 116 88
13 8 11 56 53 68 40 132 104
14 8 8 24 76 0 16 32 100
15 4 8 80 84 4 16 88 108
16 4 16 64 80 76 40 144 136
17 N/A 32 16 24 52 56 68
18 8 8 4 60 52 48 64 116
19 N/A 88 44 36 36 124 80
20 N/A N/A 68 0 68 0
21 12 4 68 64 8 16 88 84
Table 8b.
02-03 03-04 04-05 Total

Personnel
22 N/A 36 56 20 20 56 76
23 4 12 0 44 0 16 4 72
24 N/A N/A 4 16 4 16
25 N/A N/A 56 32 56 32
26 N/A N/A 32 100 32 100
27 N/A N/A 28 12 28 12
28 N/A N/A 0 32 0 32
29 16 8 84 60 N/A 100 68
30 N/A 24 32 8 36 32 68
33 0 4 N/A 72 28 72 32
34 8 4 0 24 N/A 8 28
35 4 8 0 8 N/A 4 16
36 N/A N/A 4 8 4 8
37 N/A 4 4 N/A 4 4
38 N/A 0 24 12 24 12 48
39 3 0 77 48 44 52 124 100
40 N/A 56 80 4 0 60 80
41 20 12 N/A N/A 20 12
42 4 8 84 44 56 52 144 104
43 9 8 48 72 0 4 57 84
44 4 8 40 12 N/A 44 20
Table 8c.
02-03 03-04 04-05 Total

Personnel
45 8 8 24 12 N/A 32 20
46 N/A 36 44 N/A 36 44
47 4 0 44 32 0 40 48 72
48 4 8 N/A N/A 4 8
49 N/A 4 8 0 4 4 12
50 8 0 N/A N/A 8 0
52 8 12 60 48 56 40 124 100
53 N/A N/A 12 16 12 16
54 N/A N/A 0 16 0 16
55 N/A N/A 0 16 0 16
Classification
Traditional performance appraisal or evaluation is directed from a superior to a
subordinate. In 2+2, performance appraisal is multidimensional including top-down, bottom-
up, and side-by- side evaluations.
Traditional evaluation consists of an observation and feedback session that takes
place annually, sometimes even less. The 2+2 model is based on continual feedback and
invites multiple observations every year, which offers numerous opportunities for feedback.
In traditional systems, evaluation lends itself to only one perspective - that of the site
administrator. The 2+2 model, on the other hand, allows for the perspectives of all job
classifications to be considered. This part of 2+2 allows for the fluid nature of a charter
school, which usually does not work well with traditional models of evaluation. All staff of
YCCS are teachers in one way or another who use nontraditional models of delivery that do
not work with traditional stand-up teaching evaluation. YCCS employs individualized
learning where the teacher is a learning coach and tutor who facilitates learning rather than
delivering education. The 2+2 model provides a framework for observations to be made
based on this kind of teaching. The teaching assistants and other personnel often teach
elective subjects and often in small breakout groups. The model allows them to receive
feedback concerning their teaching, which is less likely to be discussed in traditional
evaluation systems because it is not part of the usual job description. Members of staff who
are traditionally disenfranchised from providing feedback are included in 2+2.
The following tables and figures show the numbers of observations by job
classification. Table 10 shows the number of observations given by each job classification
over the course of this study. Figure 7 shows the percentage of observations given by
classification in 2002-2003. Figure 13 shows classifications of personnel during 2002-2003.
In year 1 of the study (the 2002-2003 school year), teachers made up 40% of staff who gave
observations. They represented 45% of all observations given. The classroom aides and
clerical workers represented 20% of total staff. Classroom aides comprised 25% of
observations whereas clerical workers conducted 13% of total observations. Administrative
workers made up 17% of staff while they conducted 15% of observations. The custodial,
childcare and kitchen staff comprised the “other” classification, making up 3% of staff and
conducting 2% of observations.
Figure 6 shows the percentage of observations according to job classification in year
2 of the study (school year 2003-2004). Figure 6 shows the classifications of personnel in
years 2003-2004. Over the 2003-2004 school year, the teachers made up 41% of staff but
represented 33% of observations. Classroom aides represented 21% of staff and clerical
represented 15%. Classroom aides comprised 32% of observations whereas clerical
conducted 17%. The administration made up 12% of staff and conducted 16% of
observations. The custodial, childcare, and kitchen staff members comprised the “other”
classification and were 3% of the staff members and conducted 2% of the observations.
Figure 5 shows the percentage of observations given by classification in year 3 of the
study (the 2004-2005 school year). Figure 11 shows the classifications of personnel in school
year 2004-2005. Teachers made up 37% of staff, representing 38% of the observations given.
Classroom aides represented 31% of total staff and clerical 17%. The classroom aides
comprised 34% of the observations whereas clerical conducted 11%. Administration was 9%
of staff but conducted 15% of observations. The custodial, childcare, and kitchen staff
comprised the “other” classification, making up 6% of staff and conducting 2% of the
observations.
Table 10 shows the number of observations received according to year and job
classification over the three years of the study. Figure 7 shows the percentage of observations
according to classification in year 1 (the 2002-2003 school year). Figure 10 shows the
receiver classifications of personnel in 2002-2003. In the 2002-2003 school year, teachers
made up 40% of staff who received observations and represented 38% of the observations
given. The classroom aides represented 21% of staff receiving observations and clerical were
also represented at 21%. The administration was 14% of staff and received 12% of the
observations. The custodial, childcare, and kitchen staff members, as 4% of the staff,
comprised the “other” classification and received 5% of the observations.
Figure 9 shows the percentage of observations received by job classification in year 2
of the study (the 2003-2004 school year). Figure 15 shows the classifications of those who
received feedback in 2003-2004. In the 2003-2004 school year, the teachers made up 37% of
staff who received observations, representing 35% of all observations received. The
classroom aides represented 29% of the total staff members receiving observations while
clerical workers made up 16%. The classroom aides comprised 26% of the observations
received whereas the clerical workers represented 17% of the total. The administration
comprised 13% of staff and received 16% of observations. The custodial, childcare, and
kitchen staff members comprised the “other” classification and made 5% of staff, receiving
6% of observations.
Figure 8 shows the percentage of observations received by classification in year 3 of
the study (the 2004-2005 school year). Figure 14 shows the classifications of personnel who
received observations in 2004-2005. In the 2004-2005 school year, teachers made up 37% of
staff who received observations and represented 41% of observations received. The
classroom aides represented 27% of the total staff members receiving observations and
clerical made up 18%. The classroom aides comprised 29% of the observations received
whereas the clerical represented 12% of the total. Ten percent of staff members were
administrative and received 14% of the observations. The custodial, childcare, and kitchen
staff members comprised the “other” classification and made up 8% of staff and received 4%
of observations.
Table 9.
Number of Observations Given by Year by Classification
Classification 02-03 03-04 04-05 Total
Administration 36 276 212 524

Teacher 107 561 528 1,196
Aide 60 544 468 1,072
Clerical 32 300 160 492
Other 4 36 24 64
Total 239 1,717 1,392 3,348
11% 2% 15% Administration

Teacher
Aide
Clerical
34%
38% Other
Figure 5. Percentage of observations given by classification 2004-2005.

Administration
Teacher
2% 16%
17% Aide
Clerical
Other
33%
32%
13% 2% 15%
Administration
Teacher
Aide
25% Clerical
Other
45%
Table 10.
Number of Observations Received by Year by Classification
Administration 28 272 200 500

Teacher 92 608 572 1,272
Aide 55 453 404 912
Clerical 52 284 164 500
Other 12 100 52 164
Total 239 1,717 1,392 3,348
4% 14%
12%
Administration
Teacher
Aide
29% Clerical
41% Other
Figure 8. Percentage of observations received by year by classification 2004-2005.
6% 16%
17% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
35% Other
26%
5% 12%
Administration
22%
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
38% Other
23%

Table 11.
Giver Classifications of Personnel by Year
Classification 02-03 03-04 04-05
Administration 5 4 3
Teacher 12 14 13
Aide 6 10 11
Clerical 6 5 6
Other 1 1 2
Total 30 34 35
6% 9%
17% Administration
Teacher
Aide
37% Clerical
Other
31%
Figure 11. Giver classifications of personnel by year 2004-2005.
3% 12%
15%
Administration
Teacher
Aide
29% 41% Clerical
Other

3%
17%
20% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
20%
40%
Table 12.
Receiver Classifications of Personnel by Year
Teacher 11 14 15
Aide 6 11 11
Clerical 6 6 7
Other 1 2 3
Total 28 38 40
8% 10%
Administration
18% Teacher
Aide
Clerical
37%
Other
27%
Figure 14. Receiver classifications of personnel by year 2004-2005.

5% 13%
16% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
37%
29%
4% 14%
Administration
21%
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
40%
21%
Table 13.
Number of Observation by Year by Classification
Administration 54 584 412 1,050

Teacher 199 1,169 1,100 2,468
Aide 115 997 872 1,984
Clerical 84 584 324 992
Other 16 136 76 228
Total 468 3,470 2,784 6,722
3% 15%
12%
Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
31%
Other
39%
Figure 17. Number of observation by year by classification 2004-2005.
4%
17%
17% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
33%
29%
3% 12%
18% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
25% 42%

Table 14.
Classifications of Personnel by Year Totals
Teacher 13 14 16
Aide 6 11 12
Clerical 6 6 7
Other 1 2 3
Total 31 38 42
Administration
Teacher
7% 10% Aide
17% Clerical
Other
37%
29%
Figure 20. Classification of personnel by year 2004-2005.
5% 13%
16%
Administration
Teacher
Aide
37% Clerical
29% Other

3% 16%
19% Administration
Teacher
Aide
Clerical
Other
19%
43%
Grade Level
The results indicate that 2+2 feedback was important to all categories of staff. It was
important to determine if the 2+2s were distributed evenly throughout the grades of staff,
which at YCCS fell into the following categories: (a) Kindergarten; (b) first grade; (c) second
grade; (d) third grade; (e) fourth- to eighth-grade combinations; (f) 9th to 12th-grade
combinations; (g) opportunity-alternative-independent study; and (h) oversees multiple or all
grade levels.
Table 9 shows the staffing at each grade level category over the three years of the
study. Figure 25 shows the composition of staff for year 1: (a) Kindergarten, 6%;(b) first
grade, 6%; (c) second grade, 3%; (d) third grade, 9%; (e) fourth- to eighth-grade
combination, 16%; (f) 9th to 12th-grade combination, 13%; (g) opportunity-alternative-
independent study, 9%; and (h) oversees multiple or all grade levels, 38%.
Table 10 shows the total number of observations for year 1 of the study (the 2002-
2003 school year). Figure 25 shows the percentages as (a) Kindergarten, 5%; (b) first grade,
8%; (c) second grade, 3%; (d) third grade, 12%; (e) fourth- to eighth-grade combination,
18%; (f) 9th- to 12th-grade combination, 12%; (g) opportunity-alternative-independent study,
8%; and (h) oversees multiple or all grade levels, 24%.

Table 11 shows the number of observations given in the 2002-2003 school year.
Figure 31 shows the percentages of these observations: (a) Kindergarten, 7%; (b) first grade,
7%; (c) second grade, 7%; (d) third grade, 12%; (e) fourth- to eighth-grade combination,
18%; (f) 9th- to 12th-grade combination, 13%; (g) opportunity-alternative-independent study,
10%; and (h) oversees multiple or all grade levels, 30%.
Table 12 shows the total number of observations received in the 2002-2003 school
year. Figure 31 shows the total percentages received in 2002-2003: (a) Kindergarten, 3%; (b)
first grade, 8%; (c) second grade, 2%; (d) third grade, 12%; (e)fourth - to eighth-grade
combination, 18%; (f) 9th- to 12th-grade combination, 11%; (g) opportunity-alternative-
independent study, 7%; and (h) oversees multiple or all grade levels, 39%.
Table 15.
Staffing at Grade Levels per Year
Grade level 02-03 03-04 04-05
Kindergarten 2 1 2
First grade 2 2 2
Second grade 1 2 2
Third grade 3 1 3
Fourth- to eighth-grade combination 5 7 6
9th to 12th grade 4 6 7
Opportunity; alternative; independent study 3 5 3
Oversees multiple or all grade levels 12 17 17
5% 5%
5% Kindergarten
7% First Grade
40%
Second Grade
14% Third Grade
Fourth-Eighth Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
7% 17%
Alternative
Multiple or All
Figure 23. Number of staff members by grade level by year 2004-2005.
Kindergarten
First Grade
2%5%
5%
2% Second Grade
42% Third Grade

17%
Fourth-Eighth
Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
15%
12%
Kindergarten
First Grade
6% Second Grade
6%
3% Third Grade
38% 9% Fourth-Eighth Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
Alternative
16% Multiple or All
9% 13%

Table 16.
Observations by Grade Level
Grade level 02-03 03-04 04-05
Kindergarten 24 128 128

First grade 36 180 140
Second grade 12 144 188
Third grade 56 108 284
Fourth- to eighth-grade combination 88 696 428
9th to 12th grade 59 369 520
Opportunity; alternative; independent study 39 393 152
Oversees multiple or all grade levels 164 1,416 944
Kindergarten
5% 5% First Grade
7% Second Grade
34% Third Grade
10% Fourth-Eighth Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
Alternative
15%
5% Multiple or All
19%
Figure 26. Number of observations by grade level by year 2004-2005.

Kindergarten
First Grade
4% 5% Second Grade
4% Third Grade
3%
Fourth-Eighth Grade
42% Ninth-Twelfth Grade
20% Alternative
Multiple or All
11% 11%
Kindergarten
First Grade
5% Second Grade
8%
3% Third Grade
Alternative
Multiple or All
18%
8%
12%

Table 17.
Observations Given by Grade Level
Grade level 02-03 03-04 04-05 Total
Kindergarten 16 56 64 136
First grade 16 84 52 152
Second grade 8 48 108 164
Third grade 28 60 184 272
Fourth- to eighth-grade 44 372 188 604
combination
9th to 12th grade 32 212 308 552
Opportunity; alternative; 23 205 44 272
independent study
Oversees multiple or all 72 680 444 1,196
grade levels
Kindergarten
First Grade
5%4% Second Grade
8% Third Grade
31%
Fourth-Eighth Grade
Alternative
3% Multiple or All
14%
22%
Figure 29. Number of observations given by grade level by year 2004-2005.

Kindergarten
First Grade
3% 5% Second Grade
3%
3% Third Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
22%
Alternative
Multiple or All
12% 12%
Kindergarten
First Grade
7% Second Grade
7%
Third Grade
30% 3%
Fourth-Eighth Grade
Alternative
Multiple or All
10%
18%
13%

Table 18.
Observations Received by Grade Level
Grade level 02-03 03-04 04-05 Total
Kindergarten 8 72 64 144
First grade 20 96 88 204
Second grade 4 96 80 180
Third grade 28 48 100 176
Fourth- to eighth-grade 44 324 240 608
combination
9th to 12th grade 27 157 212 396
Opportunity; alternative; 16 188 108 312
independent study
Oversees multiple or all 92 736 500 1,328
grade levels
Kindergarten
5%
6% First Grade
6%
Second Grade
36% Third Grade
7%
Fourth-Eighth Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
Alternative
17%
Multiple or All
8%
15%
Figure 32. Number of observations received by grade level by year 2004-2005.

Kindergarten
First Grade
4% 6% Second Grade
6%
3% Third Grade
Ninth-Twelfth Grade
19%
Alternative
Multiple or All
11% 9%
Kindergarten
3% 8% First Grade
2%
Second Grade
39% 12%
Third Grade
Fourth-Eighth
18% Grade
11%
Observation Category
California Teaching Standards confirms what many in the education field already
know –stand up lecturing is only a small part of what we do as educators. Educating is a
multifaceted job with many factors contributing to its success. The 2+2 model is unique in its
ability to facilitate observation and evaluation in areas that are identified as critical for
educators in California. The observations for year 1 through to year 3 were sorted and coded
according to their applicability into four main areas of concern:
1. Classroom Management;
2. Content Knowledge;
3. Professional Conduct; and
4. Interpersonal Relationships.
To determine which category the responses to observations made as part of the 2+2
model fell under, the following definitions were used to categorize them:
Classroom management is not just rules and procedures. The ultimate goal is to
develop a community of learners who care about each other and to create and maintain a
safe, supportive, and challenging learning environment. This can encompass everything from
how you arrange the chairs in the room to the lessons you plan to how you handle student
conflicts. According to Hanson (1998), classroom management is a gestalt, dependent upon
several interdependent components: (a) an engaging curriculum; (b) working with anger,
projection, and depression; (c) students as responsible citizens; (d) the teacher as a self-
knowing model; (e) classroom management skills; (f) working with resistance, conflict, and
stress; and (g) robust instruction. If even one of these components is neglected, the whole
process is compromised. Compromise results in the need for discipline.
Content knowledge is defined by Shulman as
The distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It represents the blending of

content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems or
issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of
learners, and presented for instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is the category
most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the
pedagogue. (1987, p. 4)
Professional conduct is the knowledge that the teacher understands education as a
profession, maintains standards of appropriate behavior, and provides leadership to improve
student learning and well-being. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2001) argued that
professional conduct defines interactions between the individual educator and students, the
employing agencies and other professionals. Generally, the responsibility for professional
conduct rests with the individual. Professional educators recognize their obligation to provide
a service and to conduct themselves in a manner which places the highest esteem on human
rights and dignity. Professional educators seek to ensure that every student receives the
highest quality service and that every professional maintains a high level of competence from
entry through ongoing professional development. Professional educators are responsible for
contributing to sound educational policy and obligated to implement that policy and its
programs in their interactions with the public.
Teachers have an extraordinary level of influence and power over their students.
Because that power is asymmetrical and hard to supervise, it is important for teachers to have
a deep understanding of the ethics and conduct that are required in their profession (Harvard
University, 2005).
Interpersonal relationships. In the context of this study, interpersonal relationships
included the interactions of staff members with co-workers, students, parents and the public.
According to Wikipedia (2005), an interpersonal relationship is a social association,
connection, or affiliation between two or more people. It varies in differing levels of intimacy
and modes of connection, implying discovery or establishment of common ground, and may
be centered around something(s) shared in common. “Interpersonal relationships are the
business of being a friend and a mentor, but not crossing the line and making the student your
friend” (Eck, 2005, p. 4).
A number of key concepts were used to determine whether an observation should be
coded in this category or not. Important factors include whether or not an observation
involved listening in ways that showed respect for others and valuing their ideas, even if—
and especially when—they didn’t agree or communicating openly and honestly without
distorting information. An another important factor was whether there was concern about
keeping promises and commitments or sharing feelings as well as hard facts and not jumping
to conclusions without checking the facts first. It is about demonstrating working towards the
interests of others as well as their own interests and being consistent about the messages sent.
Viewing all the alternatives before making a decision, being open to new ideas but not
dismissing what has worked before, being accountable for work and avoiding blaming others
or making excuses were also considerations.
During the data gathering and implementation stages these definitions were used to
calibrate the way observation suggestions and compliments were coded. Table 9 shows the
number of observations in the different categories for 3 years of the study.
Figure 37 demonstrates that in year 1 the compliments were heavily weighted (62%)
in the area of professional conduct. The category of interpersonal relationships was the
second largest (19%) and the classroom management category came in third. The content
knowledge category comprised 4% of the responses whereas the other compliments, those
that did not fit into the California Teaching Standards categories, made up only 1% of the
total.
Year 2, as seen in Figure 36, showed a more balanced total of responses with
professional conduct at 4%, interpersonal relationships at 32% and classroom management at
19%. Content knowledge continued at 4% and other compliments remained at 1% of the
total. Figure 35 shows the trend toward balance continued in year 3 with professional
conduct at 38%, interpersonal relationships at 27% and classroom management at 23%.
Content knowledge showed a marked increase to 10% and other compliments increased
slightly to 2%.
Figure 40 indicates that the suggestion categories showed a similar weighting in year
1 with 51% of the suggestions in the area of professional conduct. With 24% of the total, the
category of interpersonal relationships was the second largest number and the classroom
management category came in third at 12%. Content knowledge comprised 9% of the
responses whereas the other compliments, those that did not fit into the California Teaching
Standards categories, made up 4% of the total.
Similarly, year 2, as seen in Figure 39, was better balanced with professional conduct
decreasing to 20%, interpersonal relationships coming in second at 27%, and classroom
management increasing to 39%. Content knowledge decreased to 5% and other compliments
increased to 9% of the total. Figure 38 shows a marked increase in classroom management
suggestions at 40% of the total. Professional conduct increased slightly to 27% with
interpersonal relationships and other nearly even at 14% and 13%, respectively. Content
knowledge remained relatively steady at 6%.

Table 19.
Observation Categories
Observation category 02-03 03-04 04-05
Compliment-Classroom management 17 166 159

Compliment-Content knowledge 5 36 70
Compliment-Professional conduct 76 370 268
Compliment-Interpersonal relationships 23 281 188
Compliment-Other 1 12 17
Compliment-Blank 0 0 3
Suggestion-Classroom management 14 313 268
Suggestion-Content knowledge 10 41 40
Suggestion-Professional conduct 59 165 179
Suggestion-Interpersonal relationships 27 222 97
Suggestion-Other 4 74 91
Suggestion-Blank 3 37 12
Compliment-
Classroom
2% Management
23% Compliment-Content
27% Knowledge
Compliment-
Professional Conduct
10%
Compliment-
Interpersonal
Relationships
38% Compliment-Other
Figure 35. Compliments 2004-2005.

Compliment-Classroom
Management
1%
19% Compliment-Content
Knowledge
32%
4% Compliment-Professional
Conduct
Compliment-Interpersonal
Relationships
44%
Compliment-Other
1% 14% Compliment-Classroom
19% Management
4% Compliment-Content Knowledge
Compliment-Professional
Conduct
Compliment-Interpersonal
Relationships
Compliment-Other
62%
Suggestion-Classroom
Management
13% Suggestion-Content
Knowledge
Suggestion-Professional
14% 40% Conduct
Suggestion-Interpersonal
Relationships
Suggestion-Other
27% 6%
Figure 38. Suggestions 2004-2005.

Management
9% Suggestion-Content
Knowledge
Suggestion-
39% Professional Conduct
27%
Suggestion-
Interpersonal
Relationships
Suggestion-Other
5%
20%
Management
4% 12% Suggestion-Content
Knowledge
24% 9% Suggestion-
Professional Conduct
Suggestion-
Interpersonal
Relationships
Suggestion-Other
51%
Quarter
Consistent feedback is an important benefit of the 2+2 model. Table 20 shows the
total number of observations per quarter for years 1, 2, and 3. In year 1, 2+2s were all done in
January 2003 and the feedback was used specifically to give input to the administration for
year in-service assessments. In years 2 and 3, 2+2s were distributed throughout the year as
they were conducted by the staff members. Figure 42 shows the percentage of observations
by quarter in 2003-2004. The chart indicates that 23% were done in the first quarter, 29%
were done in the second quarter, 17% were done in the third quarter, and 31% were done in
the fourth quarter of the year. Figure 42 shows the percentage of observations by quarter in
2003-2004: 17% were done in the first quarter, 25% were done in the second quarter, 28%
were done in the third quarter, and 30% were done in the fourth quarter of the year.
Table 20.
Number of Observations per Quarter
Quarter Total
1-3 239
2-1 388
2-2 501
2-3 284
2-4 544
3-1 232
3-2 348
3-3 396
3-4 416
Total 3,348
17%
30%
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
25%
4th Quarter
28%
Figure 41. Observations per quarter 2004-2005.

23%
31%
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
29%
17%
Figure 42. Observations per quarter 2003-2004.
What Were the Benefits and Drawbacks of the 2+2 Model?
2+2 Staff Oral Interviews
Twenty of the 52 participants in the study participated in interviews. All participants
that attended interviews participated in all three years of the study. The 20 interviewees were
asked a number of specific questions, including: (a) What overall grade would you give the
2+2 process? (b) What do you see as the advantages of the 2+2 performance appraisal
model? (c) What do you see as the disadvantages of the 2+2 Performance Appraisal Model?
and (d) Do you have any suggestions that you feel would make the implementation of the
2+2 better?
In addition to the interview questions, participants were invited to make any
additional comments they felt would add to the value of the study. The interviews lasted
between 15 minutes and 1 hour. All participants provided input in relation to the benefits of
the 2+2 and all gave feedback on the disadvantages. One participant stated that they believed
there were no disadvantages.
The interviewees were asked to respond to the question, “What overall grade would
you give the 2+2 performance appraisal model?” To educators, giving a grade is likened to
giving an opinion. Educators use many criteria for grading from reflecting on overall
performance, to meeting the specifics in a rubric, to adhering to a bell curve. This question
was used to get a nutshell opinion of the 2+2. No attempt was made to calibrate the responses
of participants or to find a consensus. This type of “shot in the dark” is anecdotal and can add
significant value to the quality of a study. The average grade given to the 2+2 by the
respondents is a 3.18 B (see Table 21). The percentage of responses per grade can be seen in
Figure 43. More than half of the staff members gave the 2+2 a grade of A- or better.
Generally, observations and evaluations are not something that people are enthusiastic about;
however, it is interesting to note that no staff members gave 2+2 less than a C.
Table 21.
2+2 Overall Grade
2+2 Grade Number of respondents
A 8
A- 2
B 3
B- 2
C+ 1
C 4
Overall average grade
B 3.18
20% A
A-
40%
5% B
B-
10%
C+
15% C
10%
Figure 43. Percentage at each grade.
The interviews were conducted in a conversational format with interviewees giving
feedback about the 2+2 performance appraisal model. Significant observations were noted
and resulted in 65 specific comments about the advantages of 2+2. When processing the data,
12 themes were identified:
1. Continual or frequent feedback;
2. Positive or genuine feedback;
3. Nonthreatening feedback;
4. Cross-job feedback;
5. Corrective or targeted feedback;
6. Reflective feedback;
7. Conflict resolution;
8. Documentation;
9. Written communication;
10. Peer-to-peer communication;
11. Bottom-up communication; and

12. Top-down communication.
Many of the responses spoke to more than one theme, and therefore were noted more
than once. Accordingly, the total number of comments by theme exceeds the total number of
comments received (65). The total by theme then is 144 comments. For a full listing of the 65
advantages noted by interviewees, please see Appendix A. Table 22 lists the themes
identified that relate to the advantages of the 2+2 model and the number of times each theme
was touched on in a response. The top three added together represent what the interviewees
determines to be the greatest advantage of the 2+2 - that is, that it provides positive, genuine,
nonthreatening, corrective, targeted feedback. Figure 44 reveals that these themes together
make up almost half (46%) of all of the themes. The next two largest themes were continual
or frequent feedback (13%) and peer-to-peer communication (12%). These two themes are
related in the sense that peer-to-peer communication means that there would be far more
opportunities for feedback than if a single administrator was conducting all of the personnel
observations.
Table 22.
Themes of Advantages
Themes of advantages Number of responses
Continual or frequent feedback 18

Positive or genuine feedback 27
Nonthreatening feedback 21
Cross-job feedback 8
Corrective or targeted feedback 20
Reflective feedback 16
Conflict resolution 3
Documentation 1
Written communication 3
Peer-to-peer communication 17
Bottom-up communication 7
Top-down communication 3
2%
5% 13%
12%
Continual or Frequent Feedback
Positive or Genuine Feedback
Nonthreatening Feedback
2% Cross Job Feedback
1%
2% 18% Corrective or Targeted Feedback
Reflective Feedback
Conflict Resolution
Documentation
11%
Written Communication
Peer to Peer Communication
Bottom Up Communication
Top Down Communication
14%
14%
6%
Figure 44. Theme percentages.

The interviews resulted in 76 comments about the disadvantages of 2+2. During data
processing, 10 themes of disadvantages were identified:
1. Formal evaluation;
2. Conflict resolution;
3. Personal attack;
4. Time;
5. Not enough observation;
6. Too much power;
7. Follow-up;
8. Lack of knowledge;
9. Superficial; and
10. Miscellaneous.
Many of the responses spoke to more than one theme, and therefore were noted more
than once resulting in a total that exceeds the actual number of responses received (76). The
total by theme then becomes 110 responses. For a full listing of the 76 advantages noted by
the interviewees, please see Appendix B. Table 23 lists the disadvantages arranged by theme
and the number of times each theme was touched upon in a response. The top two represent
what the interviewees determined to be the greatest disadvantage to the 2+2 - that there is not
enough time to engage in as much observation as would be beneficial and there is not enough
time to do the 2+2s themselves.
Figure 45 reveals that these themes together make up almost half (41%) of all of the
themes. The next two largest themes, conflict resolution (13%) and personal attack (17%) are
related in that the concern of the respondents was that 2+2 was used when difficulties arose
instead of face-to-face communication. The respondents felt that they were not able to give
their side of the story in a conflict and that the resulting “2+2 war” that ensued contained
personal attacks and that this information was given too much veracity when it went directly
to the administration. The other theme worth mentioning is the concern related to lack of
knowledge (18%). Many of the responses indicated that participants felt unqualified to give a
compliment or a suggestion, and that perhaps a formal evaluation (6%) process would be
better.
Table 23.
Themes of Disadvantages
Themes of disadvantages Number of responses
Formal evaluation 7
Conflict resolution 14
Personal attack 19
Time to do them 20
Not enough observation 26
Too much power 3
Follow-up 2
Lack of knowledge 10
Superficial 5
Miscellaneous 4
5% 4% 6% Formal Evaluation
9% 13% Conflict Resolution

Personal Attack
2%
3% Time to do Them
Not Enough Observation

17% Too Much Power
Follow-up
23%
Lack of Knowledge
18% Superficial
Miscellaneous
Figure 45. Disadvantage themes.
The comments and suggestions related to how the 2+2 could be better ranged from it
being a “good idea” to suggestions that it “needs a better form.” In addition to suggestions
about a requirement timeline, adding formal evaluations, assigning target concerns,
encouraging verbal communication, grade level and self-evaluations, some participants
thought that it would be advisable if fewer 2+2s were required each term and more
instruction was provided on the 2+2 process. The most significant suggestions concerned
follow-up; though it was stated in many ways, the consensus was that some kind of follow-up
process should be implemented. To read the suggestions and comments in full, please see
Appendix C.
Chapter Conclusion
This chapter has summarized the findings and results of the study. Chapter 5 presents
the summary, conclusions, recommendations and implications of the study.

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The focus of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 2+2 performance
The research questions of this study replicated those posited by Dr. Alyce LeBlanc
(1997) in her recent study evaluating the efficacy of the 2+2 performance appraisal model in
the PRIDE program of Massachusetts. The questions are as follows:
1. How was the 2+2 Performance Appraisal Program implemented?
2. What difference did the 2+2 Performance Appraisal Program make?
3. What were staff perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of the 2+2
performance appraisal model?
This 2+2 project employed the participatory action research methodology. Data
collection consisted of the evaluation of 2+2 performance appraisal model assessments
administered throughout the Yuba City Charter School over the past 3 years, follow-up
interviews, and summative reports completed by the participants.
The current evaluation covered a 3-year period, from the beginning of the 02-03
school year until the end of the 2004-05 school year. In addition, historical information about
the Yuba City Charter School was presented and discussed. Data which had been collected
over the 3-year period were presented and discussed in chapter 4. The proposed plan and the
actual plan of implementation were described, including information from the in-service
conducted by Dr. LeBlanc (1997). Data triangulation was achieved through the varied data
sources, including the 2+2s collected, the summative reports developed by the participants of
the study, the data collected from the in-services and the follow-up interviews of selected
participants. This chapter will focus on the conclusions drawn from the 2+2 data and
recommendations for further study of the 2+2 performance appraisal model.
Recommendations for practical application and implications of this study will be offered as
well.
Discussion
The quality of American education was the focus of the report written by a
presidential task force in the early 1980s, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report claimed, “The
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, p. 7).
There is no question that education reform must occur in the United States. Even in
sectors that argue that education in America is good, they agree that given the advantages
America enjoys, it should be great. Research reports such as “A Nation at Risk” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and “What Matters Most: Teaching for
America’s Future” (NCTAF, 1996) confirmed a perspective that the educational system in
the United States was in dire need of repair and, perhaps, complete renovation. Two very
significant reforms are in the areas of teacher quality and parent choice in terms of alternative
educational settings for their children. The research has shown that of the most significant
factors determining the quality of a child’s education, teacher effectiveness was near the top
of the list (Lloyd Yero, 2001). The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
(NCTAF) published a report in 1996, “What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future.”
The following recommendations were made by NCTAF:
1)
Keeping teachers current on knowledge and skills through regular professional development
was an overreaching recommendation.
However, one of the difficulties in determining teacher effectiveness and providing
opportunities for performance improvement in charter schools has been aligning the
traditional teacher evaluation tools with an alternative educational delivery system. The
methods for performance appraisal that are in place in most traditional school systems are not
easily adaptable to nontraditional teaching settings; and therefore, have not provided a link
between what teachers are doing and what could be done to improve instruction.
improvement. The 2+2 performance appraisal model, developed by Dr. Dwight Allen and Dr.
Alyce LeBlanc, provides the link between what a teacher is doing and what could be done to
improve in an alternative educational setting with an alternative educational delivery system.
The 2+2 performance appraisal model is uniquely qualified to provide consistent, real-time
feedback. The teacher, then, is able to get just-in-time professional development in continued
professional improvement. The importance of the 2+2 feedback is supported by the research
of S. Griswold, who stated, “Utilizing the 2+2 approach aligned with teaching competencies
for feedback is an effective means for guiding professional development” (2004, p. 142).
This study utilized the researcher’s own school environment to implement the 2+2
performance appraisal model to determine if the 2+2 model is an effective means for
encouraging reflection and self-assessment to guide professional development plans. The 2+2
model required school staff members to list two compliments and two suggestions for each
observation. The frequency of the observation was an integral part of the model by providing
continual feedback at regular intervals, which promoted professional development. One staff
member stated it well when he said, “The frequency is advantageous, not just coming one or
twice a year. Several times in the year you get to hear about the way that you can make
things better.”
Conclusions
Evidence documented and analyzed in chapter 4 points to several conclusions:
1. The 2+2 performance appraisal model was effective as the formal appraisal
process for teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter School.
2. The 2+2 specifically addressed the areas of employee performance
improvement in (a) Content Knowledge, (b) Classroom Management, (c)
3. The 2+2 provided continual feedback at regular intervals which promoted
professional development.
4. The 2+2 provided opportunities for performance improvement.
5. The 2+2 provided a link between what teachers were doing and what could be
done to improve.
6. The 2+2 adapted to an alternative educational setting.
7. The 2+2 performance appraisal model led to more communication and less
teacher isolation.
This study provided evidence that the 2+2 performance appraisal model was effective
as the formal appraisal process for teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter
School. The purpose of formal evaluation in education is to offer feedback to individuals for
improvement. Traditional formal evaluation provides one observation per year in a planned
visit from an individual’s supervisor. The data showed that each individual received at least
one 2+2 from his or her superior in each year of the study. The single 2+2 resulted in a
minimum of four observations, four times as many observations as would have been
provided in a traditional evaluation process. A high school staff member noted, “You have
the opportunity for far more feedback and documentation than traditional evaluation
methods, which helps when you want to figure out how to change or the administration has
to show proof of needed change.”

Triangulation of these results is found in the interview responses; however, some
respondents suggested a combination process whereby they would receive a formal
evaluation once a year by the Principal in addition to the 2+2s they received. There may have
been less desire for formal evaluation had the Principal conducted more 2+2s. Several staff
members agreed that, “The 2+2 can lack the punch of a formal evaluation which can be
necessary for documentation leading to dismissal, and perhaps a more formal component
may make the process better.” There was a lack of participation by the Principal in years 2
and 3. In year 2, he completed his 2+2s after the school year finished. In year 3, he completed
only four 2+2s throughout the year. This finding confirms what Dr. LeBlanc found in her
study of the 2+2, a lack of participation or buy-in by the administration. The
recommendations for further study section will suggest that additional studies should be
conducted to find motivators for encouraging administrator participation.
A total of 837 2+2s were collected over 3 years for 52 participants, which resulted in
3,448 observations. In the same timeframe, in a traditional performance appraisal process, 52
employees would have received 156 evaluations, provided all employees were evaluated
each year, which is not generally the practice. Traditionally tenured teachers are required to
be observed and evaluated, but the frequency varies from once per year to once per 4 years.
Each traditional evaluation is based on a single observation opportunity. The 2+2 provided
far more observations and far more feedback than the traditional evaluation process,
exceeding the requirement for replacing a formal evaluation process in practicability.
Further, the 2+2 exceeds the requirement for appropriate distribution and content also.
Distribution was determined by levels of participation by individual, by job classification, by
grade level, and by equal distribution throughout the year.
Individual Distribution
All participants gave feedback and all participants received feedback for the years
that they were a part of the study. This rate exceeds the participation rate of traditional
evaluation methods. All participating staff participated at more than 40% if they were
involved in all 3 years of the study. The 2+2 was confirmed to give the staff the amount of
feedback they would need for improvement. Again, what they did receive far exceeded that
which they would have gotten had they have participated in a traditional evaluation system.
However, triangulation of the data was achieved by the interviews following the close of the
study. More than 90% of the participants who were interviewed shared that they felt that they
received ample feedback. They did, however, feel that they would have liked to get more
feedback from an administrator, which goes directly to the problem noted earlier that there
needs to be more administrative commitment and involvement.
Classification Distribution
This study provided evidence that the 2+2 adapted to an alternative educational
setting and led to more communication and less teacher isolation. Traditional performance
appraisal or evaluation is directed from a superior to a subordinate. In 2+2, performance
appraisal is multidimensional, including top-down, bottom-up, and side-by-side evaluations.
The staff members felt that, “When your peers are evaluating you and they see you everyday,
the feedback is a more honest opinion. It is helpful to get that feedback, sometimes more so
than people from outside the classroom.”
The 2+2 performance appraisal model allows for the fluid nature of a charter school,
which usually does not work well with traditional models of evaluation. The staff members
of this school are all teachers in one way or another. They use nontraditional models of
delivery that do not work well with traditional stand-up teaching evaluation. The 2+2 model
allows them to receive feedback concerning their teaching, which is less likely to be
discussed in traditional evaluation systems because evaluating teaching ability is not part of
the usual job description of noncertificated school personnel. The data reveal that distribution
of the 2+2s was sufficient to address all job classifications.
The tables and figures in chapter 4 show that the percentage of the staff in the
different job classifications in each year of the study gave and received 2+2s in a similar
proportion to their proportion of the staffing in their job classifications. No group gave or
received 2+2s disproportionate to their numbers on the staff. The distribution of 2+2s by job
classification was appropriate to support the 2+2 model as providing feedback to all job
classifications.
Grade Level Distribution
This study provided evidence that the 2+2 provided opportunities for performance
improvement. The results indicate that 2+2 feedback was important to all categories of staff.
It was important to determine the even distribution of the 2+2s throughout the grades levels.
The data indicate that the number of 2+2s given and received by grade level were directly
proportionate to the actual number of staff for each grade level in the total staffing for each
year of the study. No grade level gave or received 2+2s disproportionate to their numbers in
total staffing. The distribution of 2+2s by grade level was appropriate to support the 2+2
model as providing feedback at all grade levels similarly.
Equal Distribution
This study provided evidence that the 2+2 provided continual feedback at regular
intervals which promoted professional development. Consistent feedback is an important
benefit of the 2+2 model. The data indicate that during each quarter of each school year the
number of 2+2s given and received was similar. The 2+2s were appropriately spread out over
the entire year. The distribution of 2+2s by quarter was appropriate to support the 2+2 model
as providing sufficient, timely feedback to ensure continuous improvement throughout the
school year. The requests to administrators for professional development materials and
opportunities supported the data that staff members were prompted to improve continually
throughout the school year.
Content
The California Teaching Standards confirm what many in the education field already
know; stand-up lecturing is only a small part of what we do as educators. Educating is a
multifaceted job with many factors contributing to its success. The 2+2 model is unique in its
ability to facilitate observation and evaluation in areas that are identified as critical for
educators in California. Evidence was provided that the 2+2 specifically addressed the areas
of employee performance improvement in (a) Content Knowledge, (b) Classroom
Management (c) Professional Conduct, and (d) Interpersonal Relationships. This study also
provided evidence that the 2+2 provided a link between what teachers were doing and what
could be done to improve. The data indicated that as time passed and the staff became more
experienced with providing feedback through 2+2 they were able to address all areas of
improvement equally, though feedback in the area of content knowledge remained low. The
follow-up interviews revealed that the staff felt inadequate to the task of addressing this issue
with their peers. One staff member stated what many had difficulty articulating, “Because it
is peer evaluation, people may not want to be as honest with one another. People do not want
to be mean and they may not really know what they are talking about.”
Related Studies
The quality of American education was the focus of the report written by the
presidential task force assembled in the early 1980s, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report
claimed, “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising
tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, p. 7). Education reform has promised to provide
relief from the downward spiral of education in America. The focus of reform efforts has
moved from student output to concerns about the preparation of teachers and the adequacy of
schools (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Legislation introduced and passed at the state and federal
level acknowledges the recognition that teacher performance is part of the problem in
education (Smylie, 1996) and, therefore, part of the solution (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The
data presented revealed that the 2+2 provided input to all staff members, including teachers
and administrators concerning performance. This input provided the impetus for professional
development which led to instructional improvement.
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) published a
report in 1996, “What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future” (NCTAF, 1996). The
following recommendations were made by NCTAF:
1)
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) presented The California
Standards for the Teaching Profession as a guide for teachers. The CTC stated that teachers
must be “responsive to the needs of the inclusive classroom in which students with varying
learning styles and abilities, from diverse cultural, racial, religious, ethnic, linguistic, and
socio-economic backgrounds, are to be engaged and challenged as learners” (p. 4). The CTC
standards are to be used by teachers to “guide, monitor, and assess the progress of a teacher's
practice toward professional goals and professionally accepted benchmarks” (p. 4).
The 2+2 performance appraisal model proved to be uniquely qualified to provide
regular, real-time, feedback in a myriad of educational environments, from the traditional
classroom setting to alternative education and independent study. The teachers and other staff
members were able to get just-in-time professional development in continued professional
improvement. The findings by Yuba City Charter School reinforced the research of S.
Griswold who stated, “Utilizing the 2+2 approach aligned with teaching competencies for
feedback is an effective means for guiding professional development” (Griswold, 2004, p.
142).
The existent literature provided the foundation for the 2+2 study. It supported the
rationale for a much needed expansion into the research of alternative appraisal methods. The
findings of the effectiveness of the 2+2 performance appraisal model as the formal appraisal
process for teachers and classroom aides (K-12) at Yuba City Charter School, specifically
addressing the areas of employee performance improvement will add to the body of
knowledge concerning teacher performance appraisal.
Recommendations for Practical Application
The stakeholders in this study were the California charter school community, Yuba
City Charter School teachers, classroom aides, the administration, and, secondarily, the
parents and educational communities involved. Additionally, findings from this study may be
of particular interest to K-12 administrators in alternative education settings such as charter
schools, continuation schools, and court schools, with regard to the utilization of the 2+2
performance appraisal model for in-service classes, peer review, and self-assessment. The
findings may be relevant to the educational community at large with respect to alternative
assessment for employee performance improvement.
Recommendations for Yuba City Charter School community have been derived both
from the data collected as well as the experience of the researcher in participating in the
study. A number of suggestions became a part of the study in that Participatory Action
Research allowed the controls to change in order to accommodate performance improvement.
However, the follow-up interviews indicated additional suggestions, specifically in the areas
of accountability, administrator participation and time management.
Most participants agreed that the 2+2 performance appraisal model needs the
accountability of structure to be effective. The administrative reminders to conduct them, as
well as the assurance that someone is reading them, aid the staff in completing them. The
tally board is an effective tool in facilitating accountability. It is both a visual reminder that
staffs need to conduct their 2+2s as well as a source of information as to who has already
received 2+2s for the month.
A need for more administrator participation was revealed in both the data collection
and the follow-up interviews. Targeting 2+2s would help answer this issue. A 2+2 request
could be generated by either the giver or the receiver and would request a specific area to be
observed. The superintendent could also request specific 2+2s of the Principal and give him a
timeline in which to complete them. Targeting the 2+2s to specific areas, such as
instructional strategies, also addresses the concern of teachers that feel they need to have a
formal evaluation. The 2+2 can be as formal of informal as needed in each circumstance.
Time to conduct 2+2 observations was highlighted during the follow-up interviews.
Time to do the 2+2s can easily be provided by hiring a substitute teacher one day a month.
The implementation plan called for a sub to be provided at the request of a staff person, but
none was ever requested in the duration of this study. Having a sub on campus and allowing
teachers to schedule time away from their classrooms may help in increasing the
observations conducted and alleviate the need for teachers to plan far in advance by
requesting a sub.
Additional participation in the 2+2 could be beneficial to Yuba City Charter School.
The Board of Trustees could be given access to the 2+2 process to give them a buy-in to the
evaluation process and to give them insight into the environment that they govern. They
would have a better understanding of the day-to-day operation of the school and be able to
make policy decisions based on actual data as opposed to assumed data.
Implications
The California charter school community as well as K-12 administrators in alternative
education settings could make use of the findings of this study to implement the 2+2 in their
school environments. This study has shown that the 2+2 adapts well to alternative
educational settings and to alternative educational delivery systems.
Appropriate performance appraisal is imperative to professional development. How
can one progress if one is oblivious to the areas of needed improvement? This study has
provided much needed information and insight into a method of appraisal that offers timely
feedback that promotes professional improvement. Alternative and experimental educational
delivery, such as charter schools, requires alternative appraisal methods due to their
nonconformance to the “normal” kinds of teaching. In other words, “out of the box”
education requires “out of the box” appraisal. This study has shown how one such model, the
2+2 Performance Appraisal Method, can be applied to meet that need. As we improve
education in America it will become more and more important to provide feedback that leads
to real change. This study will provide a foundation for further research into alternative
performance appraisal methods that can adapt and flex to meet the needs of an ever-changing
educational environment that is striving for improvement.
Recommendations for Future Related Research
Performance appraisal and professional feedback leading to appropriate professional
development merit further study. For example, the accountability of participants in
evaluation and follow-up could be studied. Additionally, further research promoting
administrator participation would be helpful. Expanding the opportunities of participants for
observation and feedback within the course of a workday would also be supportive when
implementing the 2+2. Further research conducted in the area of additional participation in
the 2+2 outside of the traditional evaluation participants such as including board members,
parents and community members would expand the use of 2+2 as a feedback method for all
populations involved in the school environment. Case studies of the implementation of the
2+2 Performance Appraisal Method in other environments would also add valuable data.
Further research should be conducted in alternative settings. The development of additional
studies concerning 2+2 will aid the educational community in providing effective evaluations
methods that assure professional development that is relevant to the strategies known to
produce the best education for America’s children.

Critical Reflections
Whether it is a paper critiqued, a test graded, or a presentation reviewed, anytime
one’s performance is evaluated it is stressful. The watchful eye of the observer can become
cycloptic in the perspective of the individual being observed. This stress can lead to a “dog
and pony show” environment where the true performance is hidden in order to gain approval
and a good rating rather than insight into the strengths and weaknesses and areas of needed
improvement. No place is this more evident than in education, where an individual’s
performance assessment is determined by a single observation by a single observer, every 3
or 4 years. Data gathered at these occasions can be disingenuous.
The 2+2 performance appraisal model provided more feedback, more often to more
individuals with more information. In the case of feedback, more is better, facilitating
continuous performance improvement through opportunities for professional development. In
addition, the 2+2 gave voice to all levels of staffing. The differing perspectives of classified
employees, such as clerical and custodial, were balanced by the perspective of peers and
administration. The top down hierarchical point of view was replaced by a collaborative
educational environment. Teaching that occurred outside the classroom, such as in the
lunchroom or on the playground, were open to feedback and improvement.
The limitations of the 2+2, such as time constraints, feuding 2+2s and the complaint
that it may not be formal enough, are far outweighed by the advantages it brings to the
educational milieu, particularly in a nontraditional educational delivery system. Feedback is
essential to improvement and the 2+2 met the challenge to provide feedback at a rate and
quality that made professional development relevant to real time performance improvement.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. W., & LeBlanc, A. C. (2005). Collaborative peer coaching that improves
instruction : The 2+2 performance appraisal model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2001). An introduction to

advocating for teacher education. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from http://www.ascd
.org/advocacykit/teacher_ed.html
Ayers, W. (1993). To teach: The journey of a teacher. NY: Teachers College Press.
Barber, L. W. (1990). Self-assessment. In J. Millman & L. Darling- Hammond (Eds.), The

new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school
teachers (pp. 216-228). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beecher, D. E. (1949). The evaluation of teaching: Background and concepts. New York:
Syracuse University Press.
Berk, R. A. (1984). A guide to criterion-referenced test construction. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 47,

1069-1077.
Brophy, J. (1988). Research on teacher effects: Uses and abuses. Elementary School Journal,
89(1), 3-22.
Buechler, M. (1996). Charter schools: Legislation and results after four years (PR-B13).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2002). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practiced
(CPRE Research Report Series RB-35). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997, January). California standards for

the teaching profession. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/
cstppublication/cstpreport.html
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723-733.
Center for Education Reform. (2003). The national charter school directory 2003 (9th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Charters, W. W., & Waples, D. (1929). The commonwealth teacher training study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don't.
New York: HarperCollins.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2001). Pennsylvania's code of professional practice and

conduct for educators. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Retrieved August 27,
2005, from http://www.teaching.state.pa.us/teaching/cwp/view.asp?a=15&q=76982&
pp=12&n=1
Conley, D. T. (1997). Roadmap to restructuring: Charting the course of change in American

education (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. EA028073)
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, and again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19 (1), 3-
13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-200.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New
York: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state

policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, May). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher

Education, 51(3), 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support

professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan 76(8), 597-
604.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Pease, J. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the
organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
53, 285-328.
Devries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist
atmosphere in early education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.
Duncan, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Eck, D. (2005). Fall teaching conference [Streaming video]. Derek Bok Center for Teaching
and Learning Science Center, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://
bokcenter.fas.harvard.edu/progs/profcond/QTeck99.html
Edwards, C. (1994). Learning and control in the classroom. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 21(4), 340-346.
Eisner, E. (1992). Rethinking literacy. Reading the world: Multimedia, and multicultural
learning in today’s classrooms. In P. H. Dreer (Ed.), Claremont Reading Conference
56th yearbook (pp. 615-616). Claremont, CA: Claremont College Library.
Ellett, C. D. (1985). Assessing minimum competencies of beginning teachers:

Instrumentation, measurement issues and legal concerns. Evaluation of teaching: The
formative process. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Ellett, C. D. (1987). Emerging teacher performance assessment practices: Implications for

the instructional supervision role of school principals. In W. Greenfield (Ed.),
Instructional leadership: Concepts and controversies (pp. 302-327). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ellett, C. D., & Capie, W. (1982). Measurement issues and procedures for establishing
performance-based certification standards for teachers. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
Ellett, C. D., & Capie, W. (1985). Assessing meritorious teacher performance: A differential
validity study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Ellett, C. D., & Garland, J. S. (1987). Teacher evaluation practices in our largest school
districts: Are they measuring up to “state-of-the-art” systems? Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 1(1), 69-92.
Ellett, C. D., & Teddlie, C. (2005). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school
effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. CDE Research Associates, Inc and
Louisiana State University. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://asterix.ednet.lsu.edu/
~teddlie/JPEE%20usa.finalversion.pdf#search='Researchers%20began%20to%20turn
%20their%20attention%20to%20linkages%20between%20observable%20teaching%
20practices%20(behaviors)%20and%20a%20variety%20of%20student%20outcomes
Feldman, A. (1994). Teachers learning from teachers: Knowledge and understanding in

collaborative action research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved February
27, 2005, from http://www.unix.oit.umass.edu/~afeldman/TLFT.html
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1990). Some moral considerations on teaching as a profession. In J. I.

Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 130-
154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flinders, D. (1988, Fall). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 4(1), 17-29.
Fullan, M. (1993, March). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational
Leadership, 50(1), 12-17.
Fullan, M. G., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's worth fighting for: Working together for
your school. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Public Schools Teachers' Federation.
Gage, N. (1972). Can science contribute to the art of teaching? Teacher effectiveness and
teacher education: The search for a scientific basis. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
Gage, N. L., & Needels, M. C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of

criticisms. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 253-300.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Gelberg, D. (1997). The “business” of reforming American schools. New York: State
University of New York.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Title III § 302 (1994).
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. America Educational Research
Journal, 37, 479–507.
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (Eds.). (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gottesman, B., & Jennings, J. O. (1994). Peer coaching for educators. Lancaster:
Technomic.
Griswold, S. (2004). Videotaped performances: Guiding teacher professional

development within a competency-based framework. Doctoral dissertation,
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Grossman, P. (1988). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for

secondary English. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
Hamilton Peterson, C. (1982). A century’s growth in teacher evaluation in the United States.
New York: Vintage Press.
Hansen, D. (1999). Teaching as a moral activity. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching (4th ed.; pp. 826-857). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Hanson, J. R. (1998). Developing a classroom management repertoire. In J. R. Hanson (Ed.),

Classroom management: An ASCD professional inquiry kit (pp. 32-41). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Harper, S., & Epstein, J. (1989). Corporal punishment in schools. Malibu, CA: National
School Safety Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED310535)
Harvard University. (2005). Professional conduct. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://
bokcenter.fas.harvard.edu/progs/profcond.html
Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and

physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Organizational socialization of student teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from
http://bokcenter.fas.harvard.edu/progs/profcond.html
International Reading Association. (2005, February). Mixed reactions to NCLB. Reading

Today, 22(4), 1, 4. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://www.reading.org/
publications/reading_today/samples/RTY-0502-survey.html
Iwanicki, E. (Ed.). (1986). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout among
special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 24-31.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R., & Hansen, D. (1993). The moral life of schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaeger, R. M., & Tittle, C. K. (1980). Minimum competency testing: Motives, models,
measures, and consequences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Jersild, A. T. (1955). When teachers face themselves. New York: Teachers College Press.
Joyce, B. (1990). Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kohn, A. (1994). The truth about self-esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 272-283.
Kruse, S. D. (1996). Collaboration efforts among teachers: Implications for school

administrators. Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, Louisville, KY. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED402651)
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1993). Developing professional community in new and
restructuring urban schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED366676)
Lake, R. J., & Millot, M. D. (1998). Accountability for charter schools: A comparative
assessment of charter school laws. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public
Education.
LeBlanc, A. (1997). An evaluation of the 2+2 for teachers: Alternative performance

appraisal program in the Norfolk Public Schools Prime Project. Doctoral
dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of social organization of
schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-
208.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta

Kappan, 76(8), 591-596.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice and
school. Teachers College Record, 92, 105-122.
Lininger, S. (2000). Yuba City Charter School charter. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from
California Department of Education Web site: www.cde.ca.gov
Lloyd Yero, J. (2001). Teacher quality. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from www.teachersmind
.com
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings
from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school
districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203-226.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for
organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (Suppl.), 707-750.
Marshall, R., & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of
nations. New York: Basic Books.
McIntyre, T. (2005). Teaching social skills to kids who don't have them. Retrieved February
27, 2005, from http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/EDSPC715_MCINTYRE/
SocialSkills.html
McLaughlin, M. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher

evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M., & Pfeifer, R. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation, improvement, accountability

and effective learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Medley, D. M. (1977). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness: A review of

process/product research. Washington, DC: American Association of College of
Teacher Education.
Medley, D. M., Coker, H., & Soar, R. S. (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher
performance: An empirical approach. New York: Longman.
Medley, D., & Mitzel, H. (1963). Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation.
In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 121-123). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Millman, J. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Millman, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (1990). The new handbook of teacher
evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). The condition of education 1996.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative

for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
National Evaluation Institute. (2005). Educational evaluation: Responding to the challenges

of NCLB and accountability, Call for proposals. Louisville, KY: Jefferson County
Public Schools, Accountability, Research, and Planning.
Newman, J. M. (2000, January). Action research: A brief overview. Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, 1(1), 1. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00newman-e.htm
O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. A paper

for Professor Joan Cherry. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.web.net/
~robrien/papers/arfinal.html.
Orton, R. E. (2005). Two problems with teacher knowledge. University of Minnesota.

Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/
93_docs/ORTON.HTM
Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and

practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Pipho, C. (Ed.). (1978). Minimum competency testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 59(9), 1.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. M.
W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 22-27). Skokie, IL:
Rand McNally.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scriven, M. (1988). Duty-based teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in

Education, 1(4), 319-334.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology

of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 153.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.teaching
.state.pa.us/teaching/cwp/view.asp?a=15&Q=76982&teachingNav=*1906*
Simon, A., & Boyer, E. C. (1967). Mirrors for behavior: An anthology of classroom
observation instruments (6 vols.). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
Smith, J. O. (1995). Behavior management, Getting to the bottom of social skills deficits.
Purdue University Calumet LD Forum—Council for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved
May 20, 2005, from http://www.asktheeducator.net/articles/Behavior_modification/
WTP/1get_to_bottom.html
Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance
of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
Smyth, W. J. (1985). A context for the study of time and instruction. In C. W. Fisher
& D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 189-202). New
York: Longman.
Staff. (2004, December 6). U.S. students fare badly in international survey of math
skills. New York Times, Paris, p. 1. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://www
.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2004/12/index.php
Stallings, J. (1977). Learning to look: A handbook for classroom observation and teaching
models. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stufflebeam, D. (Ed.). (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems
for evaluating educators. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Taylor, B. W. (1987). Classroom discipline: A system for getting the school administrator to
see classroom discipline problems your way. Dayton, OH: Souther Hills Press.
Taylor, F. (1947). Scientific management. New York: Harper.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 771-869.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Learning to work:

Making the transition from school to work (OTA-HER - 637). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000, October). Does professional development change

teaching practice? Results from a three-year study, Executive summary. Washington,
DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and
Secondary Education Division.
United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1994).

Dilemmas in youth employment programming: Findings from the youth research and
technical assistance project. Research & Evaluation Report Series 92-c, (Vols. 1-2).
Washington, DC: Author.
Villegas-Reimers, E., & Reimers, F. (2000, July). The professional development of teachers
as lifelong learning: Models, practices and factors that influence it. Retrieved July 12,
2005, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bicse/Villegas_Reimers.pdf#search=
'VillegasReimers'
Waller, W. (1932/1965). The sociology of teaching. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002, February 13). How schools matter: The link between teacher
classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 10(12), 1. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
Wikipedia. (2005). Interpersonal relationship. Retrieved October, 2005, from http://en

.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationship.
Wilson, S. (1988). Understanding historical understanding: Subject matter knowledge and

the teaching of U.S. history. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
Winter, R. (1987). Action-research and the nature of social inquiry: Professional innovation
and educational work. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action

research. Lewes, NY: The Falmer Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States:
The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331-358.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTION LETTER
Yuba City Charter School

990 Klamath Lane, Suite 15, Yuba City, CA 95993
Phone: (530) 822-9031 Fax: (530) 674-1322
January 21, 2003
Good is not good enough…
Dear Staff,
I sincerely appreciate you and all that you do to make Yuba City Charter School a
great place for children to be educated. Your attention to all parts of a child’s education; their
academic, social, and character education, are all attended to effectively.
Dave Bryan’s message to us on Friday was a reminder to me as to the purpose of our
school and the goals that we embraced in the beginning. Sometimes I get so caught up in the
“hanging on” that I lose sight of the “moving onward and upward.” I was really challenged to
strive for being a great administrator, not just a good one. I hope that each of you found
something in his message that would be an encouragement to you.

To continue the process of continued improvement, I would like to ask each of you to
complete a 2+2 self-evaluation. I intend to use the information gained to suggest the topics
for our end of year in-service. The way 2+2 works is to state two things that you feel you are
doing well in your job and two areas for improvement.
For example:
Evaluation for Sandi Lininger
Response from myself:
+ I see the potential in people and encourage them to achieve it.
+ I am able to delegate responsibility to others.
- I should answer more phone calls personally.
- I should articulate expectations more clearly.
My list of minuses could go on and on, but I think you get the point. From my list I see the
need of a communication activity during in-service.
I know as you develop your 2+2 you will be reminded what an awesome worker you
are. When you have completed your 2+2 please ask one other staff person to do one for you.
The 2+2 is a free zone. The person making the suggestions is free to say what they want and
the person receiving it is free from having to respond.
Response from one other person (Susan):
+ Keeps abreast of updates on state and local levels pertaining to charter schools
+ Can handle many situations at one time and give each the attention they deserve
- Moody and sharp-tongued in the mornings
- Asks others to do something without giving enough information

Please e-mail your responses to me at [e-mail address omitted], prior to January 30th,
2003.
I want to say again how much I appreciate all of you. You are a wonderful staff. I
can’t imagine doing this job without you.
Sincerely,
Sandi
:sel
APPENDIX B
2+2 STAFF DEVELOPMENT IDEAS
Dear Staff,
This list is a synthesis of the responses to the 2+2 evaluation. It is evident that a lot of
thought and consideration went into this process. I am very pleased to have such an awesome
team. It is clear that you see the strengths in one another as well as being aware of the areas
where we all need adjustments. I can see that we all want to go from being good to being
great. All of the statements below reflect areas for professional growth classes. Please take 5
minutes to check areas you would like covered or that interest you for staff development. We
would like to make the process relevant and applicable to what we all need. I appreciate all
the time you have taken on this process.
Sincerely,
Table B1a.
Synthesis of Responses to 2+2 Evaluation
Compliments Suggestions
I am a team player and try to be very I struggle with addressing student discipline
flexible with equity & sensitivity
I am a very sensitive, caring and teachable I need to get paper work under control
co-worker
I am able to communicate clearly and I spend too much time figuring out how to
directly organize something instead of just doing it
I am able to keep order in the classroom so I neglect calling on others for help in areas of
that learning can take place my weaknesses for fear of being a bother
Table B1b.
I am able to see things that need to be fixed I need work on time management
and can come up with solutions to fix the
problem
I am agreeably flexible I am shy about learning new things like
science and math
I am always positive and loving towards I need to delegate
others
I am an excellent teacher I react to stress externally
I am careful about details and procedures I take too much work home
I am cheerful and love to have fun I am quiet and melancholy
I am considerate and compassionate I struggle to delegate work
I am courteous to all I am always in a hurry
I am creative I run slowly and am easily distracted
I am creative, fun and have a great sense of I get bogged down by minutia
humor
I am dedicated to my job & give 10% I am head strong at times
always
I am dependable, honest, and trustworthy I am disorganized
I am eager to take on any task I take on too much
I am easy to get along with I am unorganized
I am efficient but incredibly focused on my I become sharper in my tone and I lose my
job smile too
I am encouraging as possible to each I am disorganized
student
I am encouraging to both students and staff I need work on punctuality
members on a regular basis
I am extremely punctual I need to answer flags a little more often
I am friendly I makes things that are not my business, my
business
Table B1c.
I am a generous and sacrificial person that I need to improve attentiveness when others
will do my part for the good of the team are speaking
I am good at encouraging and praising I expect too much
I am a good source to go to for help, ideas, I have a difficult time adjusting to changes at
and general concerns. I give good advice the last moment
and try to help
I am great at multitasking I play favorites with the lower grade students
I am honest I am quick to speak
I am honest I need help in delegating tasks
I am intuitive, perceptive and observant I have too much seat time
I am loyal I need to talk more quietly
I am motivated to see every student do well I don’t know when to slow down and not be
in class concerned with objectives
I am not afraid to delegate or confront I need to do more long-range goal-setting and
issues planning
I am organized and able to multi-task I am easily frustrated and outspoken
I am organized and attentive to details I need to be flexible to change and see when
change is needed
I am organized and efficient I need to be working towards "team-player"
mentality
I am organized and have good classroom I am very routine
management
I am positive, creative and Administrative I sit in chair longer than I should
I am reliable, flexible, and willing to work I need to follow through on policy in the
wherever and whenever there is a need - classroom
without complaining
I am team player I am disorganized when I feel over-whelmed
and under pressure
I am thorough and care about how well I I am frustrated when I do not have all the
do my job tools/supplies available to do my job
Table B1d.
I am usually nice to other people I need help balancing my family and work
I am very flexible I become irritable over small things
I am very organized I struggle with change
I am very positive people person I need help in improvement in preparing
lessons plans that would make classroom time
fun
I am willing to go the second mile I self-conscious
I am willing to take responsibility I need to be more confident
I believe in the students and try to I am not in my class enough
strengthen their giftings
I build trust of others through effective I need to spend more time with those that
listening need my help
I care about my students & success I am sometimes gruffer with students than
necessary
I demonstrate great sensitivity toward I run 2 to 4 minutes late
others
I empower and motivate students to do I often give someone or a situation too much
their very best work leeway and assume things are being done
I follow directions and accept other ways I forget many important things
of doing things
I genuinely care about the success of my I should be little more aggressive in
students controlling the students
I get on people's level for talking to them I am a perfectionist
I get the children to take responsibility for I need a more active roll in the children’s
their own actions education and make sure that they are doing
what is needed
I get what students need quickly I am too familiar with students
I give over and above what is asked I can be a little disorganized
I go to work everyday with the best I am rude and extremely short with people
possible attitude when I am over tired
Table B1e.
I handle multitask duties with a good I am forgetful at times

attitude
I have a charming way of making you I have a hard time standing up to other adults
smile
I have a cheerful disposition I am a little sharp when I have a lot of work to
do
I have a love for reading and a passion for I need help with classroom management
children to read the classics
I have a love for the students I get here usually right on time and leave right
on time
I have a servant’s heart I spread myself too thin
I have an ability to establish and maintain a I am sharp-tongued
positive and caring climate for learning
I have an excellent ability to organize I spend too much phone time
detailed paperwork
I have an interest in the students and their I have trouble saying No!
learning
I have an openness to ideas and I am organizationally and administratively
constructive criticisms inept at times
I have excellent organizational skills and I need to learn better use of my time as to
great attention to details work smarter and not harder
I have excellent organizational skills. I need improvement in listening for others to
finish their thoughts before I answer
I have given myself over to the success of I am not careful about details
my students
I have good administrative qualities, I see things as "black and white" there is not a
dealing with parents, disobedient children gray area
and staff members
I have good classroom management I need more training in teaching
I have good concern for helping others I may forget or overlook tasks
I have lots of personality I am flirtatious
Table B1f.
I have outstanding cooperation and I may accept a lower standard of academic

collegiality performance from students
I juggle many hats well I don’t put downtime in schedule
I keep order in the classroom I am very hyper, often not focused
I kindly share all of my resource material I need to be more organized with class
paperwork
I learn as much as I can about my subject I have an air of superiority
I love my job and try to do the very best I I do not like to be unprepared.
can
I maintain professionalism in stressful I need to be more assertive in decision
situations making
I make necessary adjustments to help I need to give more of self to the school
students pass/complete pack work.
I make sure that the students understand I am sloppy with paper work and record
the material keeping
I mix humor with teaching and involve I am easily frustrated
more people in conversations in this way
I put my heart into teaching I let emotions get away
I relate well with the kids I need to remain more structured in the
classroom
I see a problem and come up with a I am factual & blunt
solution
I see all tasks through to the end I can be seen as phony and insincere
I see the potential in children and I am intimidated to attempt new challenges at
encourage them to achieve it times for fear of failing
I talk in a kind and caring voice to all I wait until the last minute to do what is
required
Table B1g.
I want to do things right I need help in my ability to evaluate the

effectiveness of student learning and
implement modifications
I work well with others regardless of I need to learn how to prioritize tasks and put
gender or age "first things first"
APPENDIX C
2+2 PHRASE BOOK
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act

rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those
because we have acted rightly.
--Aristotle
The 2+2 Phrasebook is a tool to be used in conjunction with the 2+2 Equals Better
Performance Alternative Performance Appraisal with Feedback and Encouragement method.
Contained herein are six sections which represent the six standards of the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession. These sections begin by outlining the standard and
articulating the components of success. (In other words, what you need to know and be able
to do to be considered a successful educator in the state of California.) The next part of the
section is a word bank that provides vocabulary that might be used to communicate
compliments and suggestions for this standard. Following the word bank are exemplar
compliments and suggestions from which to draw ideas.
The 2+2 Phrasebook is not intended to be a "canned" set of phrases, but rather a guide
for the way things may be stated or phrased. They are deliberately stated in the positive
because the spirit of 2+2 is COMPLIMENTS and SUGGESTIONS, not good and bad or
positive and negative or pluses and minuses. It is incumbent on the observer to see an area of
potential improvement, be it a need to change something or a way to improve an existing
good practice, and make a suggestion that is constructive. The goal is continual improvement
and growth in a mutually nurturing and empowering educational environment.

The 2+2 process is itself a learning experience. The 2+2 Phrasebook is merely a tool
in the process. With practice, the Phrasebook will no longer be necessary. The atmosphere
will become one of mutual respect and collaboration and 2+2 will become a wealth of
communication for the entire staff.
SECTION 1:
ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING ALL STUDENTS IN LEARNING
• Connecting students' prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals.
• Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students'
diverse needs.
• Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
• Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make
subject matter meaningful.
• Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
WordBank
adaptability advocate ambitious aplomb
earnest energy expound on fervent
precise preparation pretentious proficient
adept aggressive animation articulate
energetic excite exuberant function
precision presence proficiency progress

assiduous capable sincere model
grow incite compliance style
readiness responsible lethargic cooperative
assignment carriage smooth modify
growth influence composure supportive
receptivity robust loquacious countenance
assurance clarity spirited motivate
impact interest concern for technique
refined self-confidence mentor course
bearing command stamina observant
improve leadership confidence tendency to
reform sequential mindful creative
calm comment strength observe
reserved lesson consciousness theme

Compliments
1. You demonstrate a high degree of professionalism in the performance of your
(teaching, facilities, secretarial) duties.
2. You keep abreast of current educational reform trends through your
attendance at seminars (workshops, conferences, courses, etc.).
3. Time is very effectively utilized and managed in your classroom!
4. You are to be commended on your high level of expertise in (describe area of
excellence).
5. It is a pleasure to visit a classroom in which the elements of sound teaching,
motivated students, and a positive learning environment are so effectively
combined.
6. Your presentation was well received and captured the interest of all of the
students.
7. You are to be commended for your resolve in remaining on task and
maximizing the opportunity for your students to learn (succeeds, excels, etc.).
8. Your lesson was creative (innovative) and clearly motivated the students to
want to participate (learn).
9. Your students appeared eager, motivated, and happy in your classroom.
10. Your use of (name A-V, manipulative, demonstration, etc.) greatly enhanced
the students' understanding of the lesson (skill, objective, etc.).
11. You give evidence of being on the cutting edge of (name trend, educational
reform, activity, etc.).

12. Community/School resources are fully used to enhance opportunities for the
success of your students.
13. You are an excellent teacher. Strive to maintain your excellent performance
level.
14. The best of sound professional practices have been exhibited during this
lesson. Keep up the good work!
15. Your participation in school-based activities is highly commendable and
greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Suggestions
1. Vary instructional style in accordance with student needs.
2. Employ the lecture (question-answer, modeling, chalk-talk) method of
instruction.
3. Deliver lessons in a manner geared to support students' success using
modulated tones (animation, creativity, eye appeal, dramatic gestures, etc.).
4. Maximize time- on-task.
5. Provide ample "wait time" in order to encourage all learners to participate.
6. Command the attention and cooperation of all students -in the class.
7. Encourage students to remain focused on the lesson.
8. Clearly communicate learning expectations.
9. Use questioning strategies geared to all ability levels.

10. Engage students in activities geared toward enhancing their critical thinking
skills.
11. Closely monitors students' work and adjusts teaching when needed.
12. Utilize school facilities (resource personnel, etc.) to the maximum benefit of
the students.
13. Implement effective instructional techniques that provide optimum learning
experiences.
14. Clarify skill/s being taught, when required.
15. Encourage students to think and to problem solve.
16. Stimulate student participation through the use of indirect (direct) techniques
of providing information.
17. Use sound motivational techniques during the lesson, incorporating a positive
feeling tone (level of concern, high interest level, knowledge of results,
expectation of success).
18. Use creative methods to encourage greater interest (understanding,
comprehension, etc.) by the students.
19. Insure that delivery of information reflects curriculum (course guide) rec-
ommended sequence.
20. Seek to involve parents in (classroom activities, home projects, school-related
activities, the learning process, etc.
21. Establish functional (well-maintained, effective) (name subject area) learning
center.
SECTION 2:
CREATING AND MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR STUDENT
LEARNING
• Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
• Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
• Promoting social development and group responsibility.
• Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
• Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student
learning.
• Using instructional time effectively.
WordBank
abusive diplomatic motivate bias
acquiescent disapprove opinionated biased
adaptable discern perception bolster
advice discretion perceptive care
aggressive divergent persistent careful
allegiance dominant pliant changeable
allied with drive presence character
angry duty pretentious collaborate
annoyed effective preside over comment
arrogant emotion proponent of encourage
astute mindful attitude equitable

ethical govern interchange logic
excite grace interpretation logical
feeling hardworking irate loyal
tone honesty judgment manipulate
finesse impression justice reactionary
flexible inclination justify reasonable
friendly inconsiderate leadership receptive
giving influence lenient refined

Compliments
1. It is evident that mutual respect exists between you and your students.
2. Your students benefit greatly from the exceptional way in which you
volunteer extra time and effort to support (tutor, advise, etc.) them.
3. You have succeeded in molding a spirit of cohesion among students of diverse
backgrounds and cultures.
4. Your "firm but fair" demeanor is highly effective in maintaining a sense of
direction and purpose in your students.
5. (Teacher's name) freely gives praise when it is deserved.
6. There is a feeling of well-being and conviviality in your classroom.
7. You promote honest discussion among your students, which flourishes in the
overall climate of trust and support.
8. You excellently demonstrate a flair for rendering constructive criticism in a
positive and considerate manner.
9. You are to be commended for your involvement in the school extra-curricular
program (name other special project/s).
10. The learning center/s (bulletin boards, posters, charts, etc.) serve to enhance
the climate and opportunity for the students to learn and thrive.
11. It is very apparent that (teacher's name) is highly focused and has the best
interests of his/her students as a primary consideration.
12. (Teacher's name) serves as a role model for his/her students (counselees,
colleagues, community, etc.).

13. (Teacher's name) is highly skilled in maintaining sound disciplinary (and/or
academic) standards.
14. Your classroom is a model for exhibiting the benefits that can be gained when
there is diversity of cultures (ideas, backgrounds, etc.)
15. (Teacher's name) is a great asset to (name of school). Keep up the good work!
Suggestions
1. Support student involvement in apprenticeship programs (school-based
activities, special projects, training programs, etc.).
2. Provide the opportunity for students to engage in independent reading
activities (experiments, projects, etc.) of their own choice.
3. Provide for experiential activities that enable students to gain greater
understanding.
4. Work in partnership with parents in the students' best interests.
5. Give care and attention to standards of cleanliness, repair, and maintenance
regarding custodial services.
6. Demonstrate an understanding of current educational issues.
7. Review professional journals (texts, periodicals).
8. Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area
9. Provide constructive criticism/s with positive feedback.
10. Demonstrate creativity (imagination, innovation, flexibility, competence, etc.)
11. Demonstrate concern and respect for students.

12. Maintain an excellent rapport with the students.
13. Respect individual differences in the culture (temperament, learning styles,
etc.) of the students without compromising classroom objectives.
14. Demonstrate mutual respect between teacher and students.
16. Provide bulletin boards that are creatively arranged and well maintained.
17. Demonstrate a knowledge of multicultural issues and their influence on
students' adjustment (learning, self-esteem, etc.).
18. Maintain a positive feeling tone.
19. Communicate students' progress to (with) them.
20. Accept varied viewpoints and adopts a nonjudgmental attitude (manner).
21. Demonstrate an awareness of the uniqueness (value, contribution, etc.) of each
student.
22. Exhibit fairness and patience toward students.
23. Encourage collaboration among students through (describe activity, incentive,
etc.).
24. Incorporate elements of informal teachings regarding self esteem (fair
practices, tolerance, etc.) into daily classroom activities.
25. Offer praise and encouragement to the students.
26. Provide correction for incorrect responses in a manner conducive to
maintaining positive self-esteem in students.
27. Respect the cultural diversity of students.

28. Employ instructional techniques geared toward enhancing positive self-esteem
of students.
29. Demonstrate an acceptance of students' thoughts and feelings.
30. Assist students in developing sensitivities for the cultural diversity of others.
31. Recognize students' needs in terms of their social, emotional, and cultural
diversity.
32. Foster individual and/or collective responsibility for maintaining a positive
environment conducive to learning.
33. Demonstrate the ability to establish effective intervention techniques with
students.
34. Use sound behavior modification techniques.
35. Assume "case management" role on behalf of students when required.
36. Correct inappropriate behaviors (responses) without disturbing the learning
process.
37. Make all students active participants in the activities of the classroom.
38. Recognize the indication for, and implements procedures for, obtaining testing
(evaluation, consultation, counseling, etc.) for students experiencing a need
for special services.
39. Provide for a smooth transition between subjects (classes, skills).
40. Ensure engagement of all students in the activities of the classroom (group).
41. Create and use effective behavior modification (mediation) through (describe
strategy).
42. Foster individual (collective) responsibilities for maintaining a clean,
organized classroom environment.
43. Require students to respect and maintain their (classroom, group, etc.)
supplies and materials.
44. Assign duties on a rotating basis to foster ownership of classroom
responsibilities.
45. Be consistent in ensuring that all students are equipped with sufficient and/or
prescribed supplies (textbooks, consumable materials, etc.).
SECTION 3:
UNDERSTANDING AND ORGANIZING SUBJECT MATTER FOR STUDENT
LEARNING
• Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
• Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter
• Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas
• Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate
to the subject matter
• Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students
WordBank
academic acumen adroit awesome
accomplished adept astute brainy
accurate adequate aware bright

clear expertise inventive mediocre
clever familiar with keen minimal
comprehensive grasp of know-how knowledge of
creative inadequate knowledgeable multifaceted
dedicated in-depth learned orientation
developed ingenious lucid originate
diligent innovative marginal pedagogy
endowed intellectual masterful
erudite intelligent mastery
Compliments
1. You made the lesson "come alive" for the students.
2. Your command of the content area/s (course guide, curriculum, material,
chapter, etc.) was demonstrated through your fact filled presentation.
3. The lesson was made more interesting through the use of the supplemental
material supplied to the class.
4. Your creative use of real-life examples gave the students an excellent insight
into the main concept/s of the lesson.
5. Your opening (exercises, demonstration, statements, etc.) captured the interest
of the class.
6. Your presentation was cogent and concise.
7. The students were clearly motivated to participate in your class.

8. The use of (state type of A-V material used) enhanced student understanding
of the lesson content.
9. The materials used were highly appropriate and contributed to the overall
clarity of the lesson.
10. The lesson clearly met the stated instructional objective
11. Your active involvement in the activities supported and motivated the students
to achieve.
12. It was apparent that the students benefited from your timely feedback and
discussion.
13. You adeptly led the students through the discovery process on to a logical
conclusion.
14. Students demonstrated that they had a clear understanding of the concept/s
(skills, information, procedures, etc.) being presented.
15. Your follow-up exercises were highly appropriate and useful in cementing
students' newly acquired skills.
Suggestions
1. Enhance understanding through use of appropriate resource and/or
supplemental materials.
2. Stress important points and dimensions of concepts.
3. Present information in an appropriate sequence.
4. Provide opportunities for application of acquired skills.

5. Provide for elaboration of critical aspect of concepts.
6. Design activities congruent to the objectives of the lesson.
7. Provide a sequential array of learning activities, ensuring that the desired
goals are reached.
8. Present facts of the lesson accurately and in sequence.
9. Reflect the objective of the lesson while conducting lesson activities.
10. Use strategies geared toward motivating students in the learning process.
11. Use strategies to motivate students to learn.
12. Provide opportunities for students to experience the processes of discovery
and creativity.
13. Challenge students to understand the process by which answers are reached.
14. Make relevant to the experiences of the students all aspects of the learning
situation.
15. Relate the relevancy of an education to the students.
16. Display a clear understanding of the subject matter.
17. Use knowledge of subject matter (curriculum, textbook, subject) to enhance
presentation with supplemental information (materials, etc.).
18. Involve students in the art (skill) of discovery through (activity).
19. Instill a desire to learn in the students.
20. Provide whole language method of instruction, integrating reading, writing,
thinking, listening, viewing, and speaking skills.
21. Demonstrate your skill in written (oral) communication.

22. Provide review material/s containing activities related to future learning.
23. Demonstrate your highly professional writing (speaking) skills.
24. Teach at appropriate level of difficulty after assessing needs (abilities) of
students.
25. Select appropriate level of difficulty when writing objectives (plans).
26. Pose thought-provoking questions.
27. Assist students in gaining (maintaining) sound writing skills through emphasis
on punctuation (grammar, spelling, sentence structure, syntax, etc.).
28. Assist students in gaining (maintaining) sound communication skills through
emphasis on grammar (vocabulary, listening skills, etc.).
29. Establish well organized learning centers.
30. Display visuals that are relevant to the objective
31. Re-teach concept/s, when required.
32. Maintain appropriate pacing, reflective of the students' best interest.
33. Provide information that is correct and trains students in technique/s of
finding, analyzing, and utilizing information.
34. Give students opportunities to cement their acquired knowledge through
participation in creative activities, such as playwriting (creative writing, oral
reports, etc.).
35. Allow students to demonstrate enthusiasm for subject matter, through their
participation in the activities.

36. Provide a forum for sharing students' conclusions in a climate of acceptance
and dignity.
37. Provide opportunities for the application of acquired knowledge.
38. Assist and challenges students to become self-directed learners.
39. Summarize learning and allows students sufficient time to internalize the
material (concepts, etc.).
40. Allow sufficient time to explain homework and to provide closure to the day's
activities.
41. End the lesson with a review and dissemination of materials related to the
skills, for home study.
42. Check for understanding before distributing written assignments.
43. Assign independent seatwork (homework) relevant to the lesson.
SECTION 4:
PLANNING INSTRUCTION AND DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR ALL
STUDENTS
• Drawing on and valuing students' backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning
needs
• Establishing and articulating goals for student learning
• Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student learning
• Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning
• Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student needs

WordBank
aesthetic authoritative care concern
faithful increase management organization
precision responsible steadfast system
alert to avail self of careful conduct
find fault (with) instruction mannerly organized
preparedness restrain sterile take charge of
arrange barren chaotic confidence
force introduction maximize orientation
reaction review strong task
artistic behavior clarity control
grace justify objective oversee
refine rule style tendency toward
assignment benefit from clean demonstration
guide leadership opinion partake in
reliable show interest in supervise tidy
assortment berate command deportment
heed lesson order passive
repercussion skillful supplements timely
attention calm composure design
improve manage orderly pattern of
reproach stable supplies unprepared

Compliments
1. Your plan book (and/or roll book) reflects excellent planning and record-
keeping. A highly professional job!
2. Your plans reflect that you are following the prescribed (course guide,
curriculum, grade level syllabus, etc.).
3. (Teacher's name) maintains a highly professional appearance and demeanor.
4. It is evident that a great deal of planning and preparation went into your
lesson. Good work!
5. You model excellent (writing, speaking, professional, etc.) skills for your
students.
6. (Teacher's name) is committed to providing learning experiences of high
quality, as evidenced by the planning/preparedness for the class.
7. The use of (specify A-V) enhanced understanding of the lesson content.
8. All the records relevant to tracking the progress of your students have been
found to be highly comprehensive and professionally done.
9. Your plans reflect your child-centered focus. You are to be commended!
10. The posters (charts, bulletin boards, etc.) are aesthetic and relevant to the
subject matter (unit of work, etc.) being taught.
11. You are to be complimented on the wide variety of supplemental activities
(materials) you prepared for this lesson.
12. Your planning reflects your keen awareness of current educational trends.
13. (Teacher's name) reflects the highest standards of professionalism in the
performance of all teaching duties. He/She is to be commended!
14. (Teacher's name) is receptive to administrative suggestions and works well
within the framework of all professional (district, school) mandates.
15. Your students benefit from the professional maturity you bring to the
classroom, which is evident from your preparation and the delivery of the
lesson.
Suggestions
1. Insure that your plan (roll) book is comprehensive and up-to-date.
2. A review of the plan (roll) book should show evidence of preparation.
3. Design innovative lessons using current events (manipulatives, A-V,
demonstrations, etc.) to stimulate learning.
4. Plan a variety of activities (questions, discussion, written practice) to promote
understanding.
5. Use an interdisciplinary approach to (teaching, planning, etc.)
6. Record teaching adjustments in the plan book.
7. Maintain records that are accurate, thorough, and up-to-date.
8. Articulate students' progress to parents (students, specialists)
9. Provide for students of varied competencies.
10. Select appropriate level of difficulty when writing objectives (lesson plans,
activities, etc.)
11. Display teacher-made visual aids (posters, bulletin boards, etc.) to
complement and support current curriculum activities.
12. Display students' work that is reflective of their progress.
13. Supplement reading materials with library/collection of student high-interest
books (pamphlets, etc.).
14. Supply materials geared to promote hands-on experiences that support
curriculum activities.
16. Use A-V to enhance quality of lesson and support student comprehension
(understanding) of the lesson (skills, task, etc.) being presented.
17. Provide well-chosen and effective materials for working with students with
varied learning styles.
18. Select activities that support lesson objectives.
19. Make a wide variety of teacher-made materials available.
20. Prepare teaching aids relevant to the objectives.
21. Provide and maintains relevant reinforcement materials.
SECTION 5:
ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING
• Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students
• Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning
• Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning
• Using the results of assessments to guide instruction
• Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student progress
WordBank
assure effort open sagacity
abusive enhance opinion show interest in
accelerate equity opinionated sincere
accountability estimate organized skillful
accountable estimation outcome stimulate
adaptable evaluate overt strengthen
advocate explain painstaking supervise
alert expound participant supportive
analysis fair perceive tendency
analyze flexible perception treatment
appraise genuine precise unfair
appreciate grace preliminary unhelpful
approval period preparation unreliable
articulate growth progress varied
assess guarded proponent viewpoint
attentive modeling reasonable
awareness motivate receptive
beneficial nonjudgmental reliable
biased nonpartisan reproach
bolster observant responsible
disparage observe results

Compliments
1. The class activities support stated goals of skill mastery of (course guide,
curriculum, specific name of test, etc.).
2. Progress is evident in meeting stated objective/s of (lesson, specific name of
test, annual performance projection.
3. Students profit from your keen insight into their individual strengths and
weaknesses.
4. Students were given excellent and timely feedback regarding their (written
work, homework, questions, concerns, projects, etc.).
5. Your ability to maintain an excellent record of student progress was
demonstrated through the in-depth (improvement plan book, student folders,
portfolios, journal notations, etc.) that you provided.
6. The (posters, charts, papers, bulletin boards, etc.) were aesthetically arranged
and relevant to the subject matter (unit of work) being taught.
7. The (learning center/s, bulletin boards, posters, charts, etc.) served to enhance
student understanding and learning.
8. Students profited from the individualized attention shown to them.
9. You demonstrated skill in supporting and motivating your students to learn
(succeeds, work, participate, strive for excellence, etc.).
10. You set attainable goals for your students and motivated them to reach and
exceed them.
11. Students appeared eager, motivated, and happy in your class room.
12. You skillfully led your students through the processes of (discovery,
inferential comprehension, critical thinking, experiential learning, etc.)
through (describe activity).
13. You are to be commended on the excellent and timely manner in which you
evaluate, record, and return students' written work.
14. You are to be commended on the wide variety of supplemental activities you
prepared for the class.
15. You demonstrated creativity and skill in your method/s of assessing
comprehension of the lesson.
Suggestions
1. Provide students feedback and possible resolution/s to their problems
(concerns, etc.).
2. Provide timely and constructive feedback.
3. Provide for demonstration of examples of skill/s on the chalkboard prior to the
students being asked to demonstrate proficiency.
4. Provide forum for students to address the problem/s in a variety of ways.
5. Provide ongoing feedback to maintain the students' focus.
6. Vary instructional technique to accommodate the varied learning styles of the
group.
7. Assess whether each student is achieving expected goal/s and adjusts the
activity accordingly.
8. Design plan to aid students in problem solving such as (describe project).
9. Invite questions and encourages students to challenge concepts (statements,
theories, etc.).
10. Routinely incorporate test-taking skills into the lesson in order to familiarize
students with the mechanics of taking tests.
11. Conduct ongoing check/s for comprehension.
12. Monitor students' work and provides timely feedback.
13. Check individual students (groups) for understanding through questioning and
observation.
14. Check for comprehension, using a variety of methods.
15. Provide individual (group) assistance on an ongoing basis.
16. Monitor students' progress during independent practice.
17. Correct incorrect responses with patience (dignity).
18. Involve students in the art of reinforcing knowledge and skills through
(describe activity).
19. Circulate among students, providing assistance.
20. Allow for student ability to be measured by giving them the opportunity to
demonstrate mastery through (describe activity).
21. Allow for (encourages) students to plan expected accomplishments prior to
commencing project (lesson) activities.
22. Clearly define the expectations for satisfying course (lesson) requirements.
23. Set high expectations and provides ample opportunities for growth.
24. Communicate a belief in the potential of all students.
25. Share authority and responsibility for positive learning outcomes with
students (parents, community groups, etc.).
26. Allow for pupil goal-setting and self-evaluation.
27. Promote enthusiasm for subject matter to promote learning.
28. Motivate students to learn through the extensive interest (talent, information,
experiences, etc.) brought to the subject.
29. Inspire students through creative (hands-on, interdisciplinary, experiential,
etc.) method/s of presentation of subject matter.
30. Allow students to reach conclusions using a variety of methods.
31. Acknowledge efforts of students of varied competencies.
32. Establish classroom policies for student accountability.
33. Display student work that is reflective of their progress.
34. Display knowledge of individual students' motivation and uses this knowledge
to support progress and greater achievement.
35. Provide an opportunity for students to interact with one another in testing their
newly acquired skills.
36. Guide (assists) students to realize (articulate, visualize, actualize) short-
and/or long-term goals.
37. Give students ample opportunity to demonstrate mastery.
38. Maintain high expectations for students.
39. Guide students toward academic independence through (describe activity).

40. Encourage students to think and problem solve.
41. Utilize current technology to clarify and enhance learning.
42. Encourage and facilitate students' recognition and understanding of learning
as a process through (describe activity).
43. Motivate students to reach (exceed) goals through (describe technique/s).
44. Assess students' ability to comprehend learning as a process.
45. Motivate students to excel through innovative (describe technique/s).
46. Adopt a system of performance-based education in which creative assessment
is vital.
SECTION 6:
DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR
• Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development
• Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally
• Working with communities to improve professional practice
• Working with families to improve professional practice
• Working with colleagues to improve professional practice
• Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation
WordBank
demonstrate responsible common sense
pace reticent compliant

topic sagacity composed
demonstrative self-confident concern
painstaking selfish confidence
unpretentious selfless congenial
design spirit connection
passive stable cooperative
vibrant stamina cordial
develop strengthen criticism
perfected supervise dedication
vigor supportive demanding
dignity take charge of demeanor
performance understand denounce
willing unified deportment
discernment unpleasant devious
perturbed unpretentious devotion
willingness upset
drive veracity
plan vigor
Compliments
1. Keeps abreast of, and communicates, contemporary issues as they pertain to
the students and their world (e.g., environmental concerns, health issues,
family relationships, and local, state, and national events).
2. Performs duties in a manner consistent with sound ethical and professional
practices.
3. Incorporates fundamental elements of the basic skills into the lesson
(planning, program, etc.)
4. Establishes partnerships (cooperative learning groups, discussion groups,
etc.).
5. Makes use of an array of manipulative and/or hands-on aids in the teaching of
(name subject area or projected activity).
6. Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter through involvement in
professional presentations (written work, speeches, etc.).
7. Provides evidence of participating in professional development activities
(workshops, seminars, conventions, continuing education courses, etc.).
8. Combines textbook knowledge with practical life experiences when
presenting concepts.
9. Demonstrates a high level of professionalism in the performance of duties.
10. Avoids reliance on commercially prepared materials (curriculum, etc.) that
focus on narrowly defined academic skills.
11. Provides literature-based instruction, making connections to other subjects.

12. Monitors students' portfolios and uses assessment data as a tool to promote
student academic growth.
13. Uses class work and/or homework assignments to assess comprehension of
the subject matter.
14. Familiarizes the students with the mechanics of test-taking through the use of
exercises that employ test-taking skills.
15. Uses teacher-made (criterion-referenced, achievement) tests to determine
mastery.
Suggestions
1. Maintain contact with parents (teachers, agencies, specialists) regarding
student concerns.
2. Exhibit collegiality toward colleagues.
3. Maintain a good rapport with students (parents, colleagues, administrators,
etc.).
4. Accept additional responsibilities when required.
5. Share relevant information with colleagues (parents, students, etc.).
6. Exercise the option of participating in the decision-making process of (name
school activity).
7. Voluntarily engage in activities that serve to support and assist students
(colleagues, community groups, etc.).

8. Use knowledge of students to provide educational and social history input
during referrals (consultations, etc.).
9. Become knowledgeable of and utilize specialists within the school (school
system) on behalf of the students.
10. Conduct self in a manner that clearly demonstrates that the welfare of students
is of primary importance.
11. Elicit critical thinking skills to assess students' comprehension of subject
matter.
12. Pose questions at various levels of comprehension.
13. Assist students in the development of critical thinking skills (name other
skills) to access information.
14. Use activities leading to (or enhancing) the cognitive development of the
students (group, class).
15. Employ strategies geared toward enhancing students' intellectual abilities and
problem-solving skills.
16. Use activities (materials) appropriate to the varied learning styles within the
group.
17. Provide for teacher-integrated (blended) subject areas (disciplines).
18. Maintain focus by teaching to the objectives.
19. Integrate subject matter with the infusion of varied skills.
20. Demonstrate an awareness of how children learn through the use of
developmentally appropriate hands-on material

21. Anticipate potential problems and implements strategies to avoid (diminish,
alter, etc.) negative consequences.
22. Strive to solve problems through the use of professional training and expertise
to preserve student welfare and maintain a climate for learning.
23. Demonstrate mature response to constructive criticism (suggestions) and seeks
to effect a positive change in the area/s under discussion.
24. Maintain a highly professional appearance (manner).
25. Maintain an excellent record of attendance.
26. Be dependable and consistent in reporting to school (duty assignments,
meetings, etc.) on time.
27. Demonstrate a high level of preparedness and competence in terms of
planning (completing written reports/records, etc.)
28. Demonstrate competence and ease during observation/evaluation sessions.
29. Plan comprehensively.
30. Plan lesson objectives around developmental needs and/or interests of the
students.
31. Using the roll book shows evidence of formal (informal) evaluations.
32. Conduct frequent monitoring of students' progress via quizzes (tests,
homework, etc.).
33. Elicit overt written (signaling, choral) behaviors to verify student learning.
APPENDIX D
TEACHING STANDARD HINT CARDS
STANDARD ONE: STANDARD FOUR:

ENGAGING & SUPPORTING PLANNING INSTRUCTION & DESIGNING
ALL STUDENTS IN LEARNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR ALL
1•1 Connecting students' prior knowledge, life STUDENTS
experience, and interests with learning goals 4•1 Drawing on and valuing students' backgrounds,
1•2 Using a variety of instructional strategies and interests, and developmental learning needs
resources to respond to students' diverse needs 4•2 Establishing and articulating goals for student
1•3 Facilitating learning experiences that promote learning
autonomy, interaction, and choice 4•3 Developing and sequencing instructional activities
1•4 Engaging students in problem solving, critical and materials for student learning
thinking, and other activities that make subject 4•4 Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster
matter meaningful student learning
1•5 Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for 4•5 Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student
all students needs
STANDARD TWO: STANDARD FIVE:

CREATING & MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS FOR STUDENT 5•1 Establishing and communicating learning goals for
all students
LEARNING 5•2 Collecting and using multiple sources of
2•1 Creating a physical environment that engages all
information to assess student learning
students
5•3 Involving and guiding all students in assessing
2•2 Establishing a climate that promotes fairness
their own learning
and
5•4 Using the results of assessments to guide
respect
instruction
2•3 Promoting social development and group
5•5 Communicating with students, families, and other
responsibility
audiences about student progress
2•4 Establishing and maintaining standards for
student behavior
2•5 Planning and implementing classroom
procedures and routines that support student
STANDARD THREE: STANDARD SIX:

UNDERSTANDING & ORGANIZING DEVELOPING AS A
SUBJECT MATTER FOR STUDENT PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR
LEARNING 6•1 Reflecting on teaching practice and planning
3•1 Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter professional development
content and student development. 6•2 Establishing professional goals and pursuing
3•2 Organizing curriculum to support student opportunities to grow professionally
understanding of subject matter 6•3 Working with communities to improve
3•3 Interrelating ideas and information within and professional practice
across subject matter areas 6•4 Working with families to improve professional
3•4 Developing student understanding through practice
instructional strategies that are appropriate to the 6•5 Working with colleagues to improve professional
subject matter practice
3•5 Using materials, resources, and technologies to 6•6 Balancing professional responsibility and
make subject matter accessible to students maintaining motivation
APPENDIX E
2+2 OBSERVATION FORM
Name ________________________
Date _________ Time __________
Place ________________________
Observer _____________________
Staff members 2+2
1. Compliment
________________________________________________________
2. Compliment
________________________________________________________
1. Suggestion
________________________________________________________
2. Suggestion
_______________________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________________
White Copy - Superintendent’s Office; Yellow Copy - Principal’s Office;

Pink Copy - Person Being Observed
APPENDIX F
ADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2
1. I liked that I could give constructive input without people thinking it was criticism.
2. You didn’t have to be the boss to give input to people.
3. When you had to do conflict you had to put aside your anger to be logical to think
of the suggestions.
4. It dissolved my anger better.
5. I had to think of someone else’s feelings.
6. As a good writer, it was a good way to express myself and people seemed to
receive it well.
7. Documentation for communication.
8. Good communication tool.
9. The frequency is an advantage, not just coming once or twice a year.
10. Several times in the year you hear about the way that you can make things better.
11. Nonthreatening, for teachers and staff members as an administrator.
12. Know that they have a chance to speak into others people’s jobs.
13. They feel more able to adapt.
14. It is not top down.
15. It is peer to peer.
16. Staff members has adapted beyond attack.
17. The staff members really THINK about what they write.
18. It makes you think about your own job performance.
19. Self evaluation because when you give a suggestion, you look at yourself too.
20. You have to think about how you would handle a situation to make a suggestion.
21. You have the opportunity for far more feedback and documentation than traditional
evaluation methods.
22. You can target problem areas in a non threatening manner.
23. 2+2 has provided a means of communication that helps to break down barriers
between the Admin and the other staff members.
24. It is an effective conflict resolution tool because it forces the individual to cool off
and think of two compliments before they can offer suggestions.
25. Complaints must be formatted in the form of a suggestion, fostering a more positive
environment.
26. The number of 2+2 a person receives in the year provides continual feedback thus
facilitating continual improvement.
27. It is your peers evaluating you and they see you everyday and they can give a more
honest opinion.
28. It helps people to know what they are doing wrong.

29. Frequency with which the feedback is given.
30. It allows for quick response to corrective action.
31. It is not as scary as the dog and pony type of evaluation.
32. It is always good to get positive feedback.
33. It gives you an opportunity to compliment people.
34. The only tool for disciple and corrective behavior.
35. It gives us a means of feedback.
36. Tool for communication to upper management.
37. They are quick fixes.
38. It is quick feedback for things that need correction.
39. I like to do things in a positive light.
40. We all like to make changes when they are presented in a positive format.
41. Gives you an idea of how well you are doing your job.
42. You are able to see what and how you need to improve in my job.
43. It is a way to get other staff members’ opinions.
44. I like the 2+2.
45. It helps to see areas you don’t.
46. We got in and out of each others classrooms.
47. Perceptions of classes from in the class instead of out it.
48. Peer evaluation as opposed to top down.
49. Input from fellow teachers, specifically for the grades levels.
50. Being able to give positive feedback.
51. It makes you aware of your coworkers and what they are doing.
52. It encourages interaction among the staff members.
53. It occasionally gives you good ideas.
54. I liked the peer suggestions.
55. It allows there to be a forum among peer staff members to lend constructive
criticism
56. Some people have valuable input.
57. 2+2 provides suggestions for improvement, not just criticism.
58. 2+2 Provides continual feedback, not just a once a year critique.
59. 2+2 is peer to peer instead of top down.
60. It is more useful because it is done by people who see you and work with you
everyday.
61. The suggestions are more genuine than recommendations from your boss.
62. Immediate voice
63. Immediate feedback
64. Peer advise and strategies

65. Not as intimidating as “boss” advise
APPENDIX G
DISADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2
1. I had to sometimes use it to resolve conflict.

2. I wasn’t able to give my side of the situation as much.
3. Some people took it personally instead of taking it as a suggestion of how to
improve.
4. They took it as a personal attack.
5. It is sometimes hard to come up with 2 of each thing.
6. Time out of our regular day, which can be hectic…
7. Can be inconvenient to accomplish.
8. It can be used as a tool for personal attack.
9. It is in writing which adds to the validity.
10. It goes to admin.
11. For verbal communicators the written format is daunting.
12. If staff members neglect to do the required 2+2s per month.
13. They are overwhelmed by trying to catch up.
14. The 2+2 can lack the punch of a formal evaluation.
15. Can be necessary for documentation leading to dismissal.
16. Sometime people use that way to tell you something they don’t like about
you.
17. Coming and talking to you.
18. They use that as their only means of communicating that they are unhappy.
19. Sometimes it is hard to find tactful ways of saying things.
20. Don’t hurt people’s feelings.
21. I don’t work enough with the teachers.
22. Because I don’t work closely with them to give an opinion.
23. If you say something bad about someone they can get mad at you.
24. I don’t like doing them.
25. Because it is peer evaluation people may not want to be as honest with one
another.
26. People do not want to be mean.
27. Need more time to do them… time for observations of teaching.
28. Improper use of 2+2, used for attack
29. It can be used to “get back at” someone.
30. The timing is an issue.
31. The staff members feel like they have to do them all at once because they get
behind.
32. They may base too many 2+2s on a single observation.

33. No time to do them.
34. It was hard to find opportunities.
35. It is hard in a birds eye view to find something to write about.
36. Hard to find a fault and to write about it.
37. When a suggestion is on paper it has power.
38. It tends to be used as a petty tool for all discussions.
39. Used instead of face to face communication.
40. The 2+2s cause arguments.
41. Can cause hard feelings.
42. Some people bash others.
43. I don’t see any disadvantages.
44. It can only happen if we had someone to cover our classrooms.
45. In the hall 2+2 is not as useful.
46. You need to see a lesson going on.
47. It was difficult to find areas of improvement
48. That I didn’t feel it really evaluated our ability as a teacher.
49. Too fast.
50. Personality oriented rather than based on our professional ability.
51. How could you really find the time?
52. The “have to do it” factor can make them ineffective.
53. 2+2s are hard to write.
54. They sometimes tend to become superficial because you have to turn them
out.
55. You don’t often have time to see what the person is doing.
56. Hard to do a fair evaluation because you don’t have time to observe.
57. We need supervisor feedback.
58. We may need something weightier, like formal evaluation.
59. More direct correction.
60. Follow-up greatly needed.
61. It has the potential of being misused.
62. Can be used to be overly critical of each other, taking jabs at one another.
63. I don’t see change when issues are brought up.
64. Too much blowing sunshine.
65. Some people improperly for personal attack.
66. Some use 2+2 to air their grievances with one another.
67. Trying to find material for the second compliment or second suggestion can
be daunting.
68. Frequency is a disincentive for completing the process.

69. You may not work with an individual.
70. You may not have enough ammo for two suggestions.
71. You may not really know the job of the other person.
72. Fear of being way off mark with your suggestion.
73. Required every month.
74. Don’t have time to think of something.
75. The sheets needed to be more clearly labeled as to who gets what copy.
APPENDIX H
HOW THE 2+2 COULD BE BETTER
1. I thought it was an ingenious idea.

2. Valuable tool.
3. Suggest form type for repeated offences for administrators.
4. Administrators be able to dictate 2+2 to assistant.
5. I appreciate the willingness of the school that is innovative.
6. I am always in favor of things that will help the staff members and
students… it is about the kids.
7. A timeline of monthly basis to do them.
8. People will be more aware by having a due date.
9. Suggest personal follow-up,
10. Give people credit for another 2+2.
11. It is good that it is done by your peers.
12. I liked it the first year and not as much the second year.
13. Maybe a combo of formal and 2+2
14. Assign a day to do 2+2.
15. Task specifics to look at during 2+2.
16. Some suggestions should be verbal, not written.
17. Evaluating our own peers at our own level.
18. Follow up is essential.
19. Do 2+2 on ourselves.
20. Cut them down to one a month and doing a really good job on it.
21. It would be beneficial to also do a formal evaluation.
22. Suspense. How did they correct the situation that was a part of the
suggestion.
23. Give a timeline of correction.
24. Follow up verbally.
25. What is happening and what is being done to correct it.
26. Taking and documenting action.
27. Follow up would need to be done consistently.
28. Re-teach proper use of 2+2
29. Use targeted 2+2s so that people know what their looking for.
30. Add components of formal evaluations for the supervisors.
31. More objective feedback is helpful, perhaps it can be added.
32. If there were some kind of follow up system by the author or your supervisor
it would be better.
33. I would like it better if they were computerized so they could be sent
electronically.

Impact Assessment of The Effectiveness of The 2+2 Performance Appraisal Model by Sandra A. Lininger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Impact Assessment of The Effectiveness of The 2+2 Performance Appraisal Model by Sandra A. Lininger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

THE 2+2 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MODEL

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

UMI Microform 3206560

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

One of the difficulties in providing opportunities for performance improvement in charter

schools is aligning the traditional teacher evaluation tools to an alternative educational

addressing the areas of employee performance improvement. Through document research

methodology. Data collection consisted of evaluation of 2+2 performance appraisal model

communication and less teacher isolation.

To my children, Micah and Shari.

You are my heroes.

You are smart, funny, caring, passionate, and genuine.

Let the Light of Truth light your path.

Let the Ray of Hope warmly shine upon you.

Let the Gift of Knowledge show you the way.

Let True Love always be your motive.

to contribute to educational improvement. The contributions of my committee have been

through this process, but moving my heart to believe in myself.

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 4

Background of the Study 5

Significance of the Study 6

Assumptions and Limitations 10

Organizationof the Remaining Chapters of the Proposal 11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Teacher Professional Condcut 30

Teacher Isolation and Empowerment 32

Participatory Action Research 33

Design of the Study 38

Sample and Population 39

CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 43

The 2+2 Imlementation Plan 44

What Difference Did the 2+2 Make? 63

What Were the Benefits and Drawbacks of the 2+2 Model? 98

Chapter Conclusion 106

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107

Individual Distribution 113

Classification Distribution 113

Grade Level Distribution 114

Equal Distribution 115

Related Studies 116

Recommendations for Practical Application 118

Recommendations for Future Related Research 121

Critical Reflections 122

APPENDIX B. 2+2 STAFF DEVELOPMENT IDEAS 137

APPENDIX C. 2+2 PHRASE BOOK 144

APPENDIX D. TEACHING STANDARD HINT CARDS 177

APPENDIX E. 2+2 OBSERVATION FORM 179

APPENDIX F. ADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2 180

APPENDIX G. DISADVANTAGES OF THE 2+2 183

APPENDIX H. HOW THE 2+2 COULD BE BETTER 186

Table 1. Implementation Plan 46

Table 2a. Actual Implementation 47

Table 2b. Actual Implementation 48

Table 2c. Actual Implementation 49

Table 3. Consensus of Areas of Concern 50

Table 4a. Four Areas of Concern 51

Table 4b. Four Areas of Concern 52

Table 4c. Four Areas of Concern 53

Table 5a. Staffing Ideals 54

Table 5b. Staffing Ideals 55

Table 6. Student Performance Support 59

Table 7. Brainstorming 2+2 61

Table 8a. Number of Observations per Year per Employee 67