[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-601216-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-601216-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","enacting-the-rubric-teacher-improvements-in-windows-of-high-stakes-observation","ENACTING THE RUBRIC - TEACHER IMPROVEMENTS IN WINDOWS OF HIGH-STAKES OBSERVATION","","Teacher evaluation systems that rely on classroom observations in high-stakes settings are often treated as accountability tools that nonintrusively measure teacher quality and as information mechanisms that generate actionable feedback. Causal evidence linking such programs to day-to-day instructional practice remains limited. Using the Washington, DC IMPACT program, the study exploits random timing variation around unannounced observation windows to disentangle motivation before evaluation from learning after evaluation.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/enacting-the-rubric-teacher-improvements-in-windows-of-high-stakes-observation/601216/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/enacting-the-rubric-teacher-improvements-in-windows-of-high-stakes-observation/601216.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"LangkahRina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What does the study examine about teacher evaluation observations?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It examines whether teachers improve because of feedback after an observation or because the possibility of being observed motivates changes beforehand, and how these effects combine.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How does the study identify causal effects?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It uses administrative data from Washington, DC’s IMPACT program and exploits random variation in the daily probability of observations within publicly known observation windows.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What are the main results reported?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Teachers work to improve during periods when they are more likely to be observed and show improvement with subsequent evaluations; the authors interpret this as evidence that both accountability and information mechanisms operate together.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},601216,1792210593,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":112,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090893776,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","|  | ENACTING THE RUBRIC: TEACHER\u003Cbr>IMPROVEMENTS IN WINDOWS OF\u003Cbr>HIGH-STAKES OBSERVATION |\n| --- | --- |\n\nAaron R. Phipps (corresponding author) Department of Social Sciences U.S. Military Academy at West  \nPoint  \nWest Point, NY 10996  \n[aaron.phipps@westpoint.edu](aaron.phipps@westpoint.edu)  \nEmily A. Wiseman  \nCurry School of Education University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22904 [ew3kp@virginia.edu](ew3kp@virginia.edu)  \nAbstract  \nTeacher evaluation systems that use in-class observations, particularlyin high-stakes settings, are frequently understood as accountability systems intended as nonintrusive measures of teacher quality. Presumably, the evaluation system motivates teachers to improve their practice—an accountability mechanism—and provides actionable feedback for improvement—an information mechanism. No evidence exists, however, establishing the causal link between an evaluation program and daily teacher practices. Importantly, it is unknown how teachers may modify their practice in the time leading up to an unannounced in-class observation, or how they integrate feedback into their practice postevaluation, a question that fundamentally changes the design and philosophy of teacher evaluation programs. We disentangle these two effects with a unique empirical strategy that exploits random variation in the timing of in-class observations in the Washington, DC, teacher evaluation program IMPACT. Our key finding is that teachers work to improve during periods in which they are more likely to be observed, and they improve with subsequent evaluations. We interpret this as evidence that both mechanisms are at work, and as a result, policy makers should seriously consider both when designing teacher evaluation systems.  \n[https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00295](https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00295)  \n© 2019 Association for Education Finance and Policy  \nDownloaded from [http://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article-pdf/16/2/283/1910685/edfp_a_00295.pdf by guest on 20 July 2021](http://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article-pdf/16/2/283/1910685/edfp_a_00295.pdf by guest on 20 July 2021)  \n1. INTRODUCTION  \nImproving teacher practice is a policy imperative, as a large body of research shows that high-quality teaching is one of the strongest within-school levers for improving student outcomes (Hanushek 2011) . One way to improve teaching practice is through teacher evaluation programs (Taylor and Tyler 2012; Steinberg and Sartain 2015) . In particular, researchers argue that including standards-based observation rubrics as an evaluation measure promotes teacher development by providing information to teachers about how they may improve their practice (Papay 2012) . There is little empirical evidence, however, addressing the circumstances under which teachers change their practice to align with the information contained in these rubrics: Are improvements made because of feedback received from the evaluation, or does the possibility of evaluation provide motivation and direction to improve practice? This question fundamentally changes the underpinning philosophy and design of teacher evaluation programs. Understanding the factors that lead teachers to improve their practice gives traction to policy makers hoping to replicate the successes of evaluation policy in other contexts. Empirically speaking, a particularly confounding issue is identifying the extent to which in-class evaluations are noninvasive measures of teacher quality as opposed to motivating events that encourage particular practices in the days leading up to an evaluation. Our key result is that teachers work to improve when they are likely to be observed, and they learn from being observed.  \nUsing administrative data from the Washington, DC (hereafter DC) teacher evaluation program called IMPACT, we leverage the exogenous timing of classroom observations to isolate how teachers improve their evaluation score as observation becomes more likely. Importantly, these teaching improvemen","cbCailbl3XlPPnM2","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailbl3XlPPnM2","pdf",238911,"English","# Introduction\n## Research question and policy motivation\n## Empirical strategy and data context\n## Findings on teacher and student outcomes","[{\"question\":\"What does the study examine about teacher evaluation observations?\",\"answer\":\"It examines whether teachers improve because of feedback after an observation or because the possibility of being observed motivates changes beforehand, and how these effects combine.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the study identify causal effects?\",\"answer\":\"It uses administrative data from Washington, DC’s IMPACT program and exploits random variation in the daily probability of observations within publicly known observation windows.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the main results reported?\",\"answer\":\"Teachers work to improve during periods when they are more likely to be observed and show improvement with subsequent evaluations; the authors interpret this as evidence that both accountability and information mechanisms operate together.\"}]","ENACTING THE RUBRIC - TEACHER IMPROVEMENTS IN WINDOWS OF HIGH-STAKES OBSERVATION | PDF",1792092199,76]