[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-587411-105":59,"doc-detail-587411-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","research-report-september-2013-teacher-evaluation-in-practice-implementing-chicagos-reach-students","Research Report September 2013 - Teacher Evaluation in Practice - Implementing Chicago’s REACH Students","","Research report September 2013 examines perceptions and experiences of teachers and administrators during the first year of REACH implementation in Chicago, highlighting how the demanding rollout supported or challenged instructional improvement. It details shortcomings in the prior evaluation system, including limited differentiation among teacher effectiveness and lack of actionable feedback. It explains how REACH integrates multiple classroom observations with student growth from two assessment types and reframes evaluation as practice-oriented improvement.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report-september-2013-teacher-evaluation-in-practice-implementing-chicagos-reach-students/587411/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/research-report-september-2013-teacher-evaluation-in-practice-implementing-chicagos-reach-students/587411.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"วิน","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main focus of this September 2013 report?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The report focuses on teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and experiences during the first year of REACH implementation in Chicago.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What limitations does the report describe in Chicago’s earlier teacher evaluation system?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It describes two major shortcomings: insufficient differentiation among strong and weak teachers and feedback that teachers could not use to improve instruction.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the REACH system evaluate teacher effectiveness?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"REACH combines multiple classroom observations with student growth measured on two different assessment types, aiming to support instructional improvement while informing evaluation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},587411,1792188992,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},2336475104736,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c5e0e5b17e70?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786591360781797222","RESEARCH REPORT SEPTEMBER 2013  \nTeacher Evaluation in Practice  \nImplementing Chicago’s REACH Students  \nSusan E. Sporte, W. David Stevens, Kaleen Healey, Jennie Jiang, and Holly Hart  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \n1 Executive Summary  \n3 Introduction  \nChapter 1  \n9 The Classroom Observation Process  \nChapter 2  \n15 The Use of Student Growth in Evaluation  \nChapter 3  \n21 Training and Communication  \nChapter 4  \n25 How Principals Manage Classroom Observation Workloads  \nChapter 5  \n29 Questions to Consider  \n33 References  \n35 Appendices  \n37 Endnotes  \nAcknowledgements  \nThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Joyce Foundation and its continuing interest in this important line of work. This analysis based on one district’s experience with a dramatically different teacher evaluation system could not have happened without Joyce’s steadfast support and long term commitment. In addition we would like to acknowledge the support of Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union. We have gained particular insights from Matt Lyons, Paulette Poncelet, Sheila Cashman, Elizabeth Press, Didi Schwartz, Amanda Smith, Susan Kajiwara-Ansai, and Meghan Zefran from CPS central office and from Carol Caref of the CTU as well as other teachers from the CPS-CTU Joint Committee who have provided valuable feedback as the work has progressed.  \nIn addition we thank the teachers and administrators of Chicago Public Schools who shared their thoughts through multiple surveys, and those who provided their valuable time in one-on-one interviews. This report was made possible through their participation. We also learned from those individuals serving as Instructional Effectiveness Specialists and thank them for the extra time they spent sharing with us.  \nWe are also indebted to the Research Assistants who helped in countless ways to make this report possible: Patrick Wu, Elc Estrera, Jen Cowhy, Catherine Alvarez-McCurdy, Josie Glore, and Gabrielle Friedman. Their contributions have been invaluable. We thank members of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research’s Steering Committee who commented on an earlier draft of this report—especially Peter Godard, Karen Lewis, and Luis Soria. It is always humbling to have our work critiqued by those with on-the-ground experience and we thank them for sharing that experience with us. Their thoughts helped shape this final product. Finally, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to members of the UChicago CCSR staff who worked with us as thought partners and readers through numerous iterations to arrive at this final report: The communications staff, Emily Krone and Bronwyn McDaniel, who kept us focused and offered excellent feedback; fellow researchers Elaine Allensworth, Jenny Nagaoka, Melissa Roderick, Penny Sebring, Marisa de la Torre, and Stuart Luppescu; and our superb final technical readers Lauren Sartain and Paul Moore. Our deep discussions with all of them have added to this report as well as our understanding of the promise and challenge of changing the teacher evaluation system in Chicago.  \nThis report was produced by UChicago CCSR’s publications and communications staff: Emily Krone, Director for Outreach and Communication; Bronwyn McDaniel, Communications and Research Manager; and Jessica Puller, Communications Specialist.  \nGraphic Design: Jeff Hall Design  \nPhotography: Cynthia Howe and David Schalliol  \nEditing: Ann Lindner  \n[09.2013/500/jh.design@rcn.com](09.2013/500/jh.design@rcn.com)  \nExecutive Summary  \nThis report focuses on the perceptions and experiences of teachers and administrators during the first year of REACH implementation, which was in many ways a particularly demanding year. These experiences can be helpful to CPS and to other districts across the country as they work torestructure and transform teacher evaluation.  \nHistorically, teacher evaluation in Chicago has fallen short on two crucial fronts: It has not provided administrators with measures that differenti","cbCaibzRYojnyd23","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibzRYojnyd23","pdf",3326752,44,"English","# Executive Summary\n# Introduction\n# The Classroom Observation Process\n# The Use of Student Growth in Evaluation\n# Training and Communication\n# How Principals Manage Classroom Observation Workloads\n# Questions to Consider\n# References\n# Appendices\n# Endnotes\n# Acknowledgements","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of this September 2013 report?\",\"answer\":\"The report focuses on teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and experiences during the first year of REACH implementation in Chicago.\"},{\"question\":\"What limitations does the report describe in Chicago’s earlier teacher evaluation system?\",\"answer\":\"It describes two major shortcomings: insufficient differentiation among strong and weak teachers and feedback that teachers could not use to improve instruction.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the REACH system evaluate teacher effectiveness?\",\"answer\":\"REACH combines multiple classroom observations with student growth measured on two different assessment types, aiming to support instructional improvement while informing evaluation.\"}]","Research Report September 2013 - Teacher Evaluation in Practice - Implementing Chicago’s REACH Students | PDF",1792061818,111]