Toward Improving Teacher Quality:

An Evaluation of
Peer Assistance and Review in
Montgomery County Public Schools
by Dr. Julia Koppich
June 8, 2004

1
 TOWARD IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY:

AN EVALUATION OF
PEER ASSISTANCE AND REVIEW IN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Julia E. Koppich, Ph.D.

“The purpose of the joint MCEA/MCPS Peer Assistance and

Review (PAR) program is to assist all teachers to meet standards for
proficient teaching. It provides intensive support for experienced
teachers who have been identified as performing below MCPS
standards of proficiency, experienced teachers new to MCPS who need
assistance, and [most] teachers new to teaching. As a result, the PAR
program is the MCPS mechanism for maintaining system-wide quality
control and ensuring that all MCPS teachers responsible for teaching
students are functioning at or above high MCPS standards of
performance” (MCPS website).

This report is an evaluation of the peer assistance and review component of the PGS. As
PAR is part of the more comprehensive PGS improvement effort, this report ought to be
considered within the context of PGS development and implementation and read in concert with
the more complete PGS evaluation reports.1
Montgomery County Public Schools began implementing the Professional
Growth System (PGS) in the year 2000. The purpose of the PGS is to transform schools
into professional learning communities in which teachers are afforded time, support, and
opportunity for continuous growth and improvement.
The PGS includes a number of program elements: job-embedded professional
development supported by school-based staff development teachers; continuous
professional growth through teacher professional development plans; standards-based
evaluation for experienced teachers which takes as its point of departure that appraisal of
professional performance is about improving professional skills; and peer assistance and
review (PAR) for teachers new to teaching and for experienced teachers performing
1
These reports are: Koppich, Julia E., “The Professional Growth System in Montgomery County: A Report on First-
Year Implementation Results,” October 2001; Koppich, Julia E., “Toward Professional Community: The
Professional Growth System in Montgomery County Public Schools,” 2002; Implementing the Professional Growth
System in Montgomery County Public Schools: Third Year Evaluation Report,” June 2004.

2
below standard. The PGS represents a set of carefully considered steps which, taken
together, have as their ultimate goal improving the quality of teaching in Montgomery
County and, by extension, improving student learning.
Data Sources
Data for this evaluation were gathered from a variety of sources including written
documents, interviews, surveys, and case studies. A complete list of text references is listed at
the end of this report.
In order to gather data, individual or group interviews (focus groups) were conducted
with all PAR Panel members; with approximately a dozen novice and tenured teachers who have
completed the PAR program; and with nearly all Consulting Teachers in years 1, 2, and 3 of their
rotations. In addition, approximately 20 elementary, middle, and high school principals were
individually interviewed, as were the current and immediate past presidents of the Montgomery
County Education Association (MCEA) and Montgomery County Association of Administrative
and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP).
Results of teacher and administrator surveys administered by MCPS’ Office of Shared
Accountability (OSA) provided useful data on specific elements of the PAR program as did case
studies conducted by George Washington University. In many instances, survey questions
mirrored interview questions, and vice versa, as a means of corroborating information.
Additional relevant information was gleaned from the MCPS website and the MCPS
Professional Growth System Handbook 2003-2004 as well as from attendance at meetings of the
PAR Panel and PAR Pairs.
As points of comparison, where possible, statistical data were gathered from districts with
PAR programs of long duration: Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo, Ohio; Poway (San Diego
County), California; and Rochester, New York. Data are accurate as of January 2004. Similar
data, where possible, were obtained for MCPS.
Organization of This Report
This report is organized into several sections. Following this introduction is a brief review
of the origin of MCPS’ PAR program and a description of the way it functions. This is followed
by a section that offers findings from the data and a subsequent section that provides a set of
recommendations for MCPS to consider.

3
 MCPS’ PAR PROGRAM

The genesis of Montgomery County’s PAR Program can be found in the Board of
Education’s 1995 request that the superintendent form a task force to make
recommendations about revising the district’s teacher evaluation system. The task force
report, released in 1997, recommended that the district replace the existing evaluation
system with a new model that would emphasize collaboration between teachers and
administrators and continuous professional improvement.
That same year, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA)
publicly embraced the “new unionism” approach put forth by then-National Education
Association President Robert Chase. New unionism advocated union-management
cooperation and a more focused union emphasis on improving the quality of teaching and
learning.
One of the consequences of MCEA’s adoption of new unionism was interest-
based bargaining in fall 1997 contract negotiations. Among the results of these
negotiations were the Core Principles of Continuous Improvement and the preamble to
the 1998-2001contract emphasizing student achievement, teacher quality, staff
development, and shared accountability. The contract framed a process for ongoing
MCEA-MCPS collaboration and a shared commitment to develop, among other reforms,
a peer assistance and review program.2
Collaboration on the development of MCPS’ PAR program (as well on the other
elements of the Professional Growth System) expanded to become a broader-based effort
that included the teachers’ union (Montgomery County Education Association); the
Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel
(MCAASP), the organization that represents principals and other sub-cabinet level
administrators; and representatives of the district’s central administration from the human
resources, curriculum, and staff development departments.
How PAR Operates
The first peer assistance and review program in the nation was launched in 1981

2
For a more complete description of the history leading to the development of the PGS in MCPS, see “The
Professional Growth System in Montgomery County: Building Professional Community in Schools,”
published by MCPS, 2001.

4
in Toledo, Ohio with a one-sentence clause in the Toledo teachers’ contract. Teachers
agreed to police the ranks of veterans in exchange for the right to review new teachers.
PAR programs that followed—Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Poway (San Diego
County), California; and Rochester, New York—while perhaps different in some aspects
from Toledo’s program, nevertheless take their basic cues from that initial peer assistance
and review effort. So, too, does Montgomery County’s PAR program.
PAR for novice teachers is meant to provide the kind of supported induction
research suggests new teachers need to be successful. As the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future noted nearly a decade ago, novice teachers who have the
support of a skilled mentor are much more likely quickly to move beyond the initial
routines of instruction, including classroom management, and get down to the business of
teaching academic course content (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 1996).
Assistance, in the form of modeling lessons; help with planning; coaching; and,
reviewing instruction is provided to novice teachers by Consulting Teachers (CTs),
highly qualified experienced teachers selected by the PAR program’s governing panel.
The Panel, composed of equal numbers of teachers and administrators nominated by their
respective unions and appointed by the superintendent, is co-chaired by a teacher
representative and an administrator.
CT assistance is also provided to experienced teachers who have been designated
“under-performing”. PAR offers these teachers a second chance. CTs provide intensive
support and assistance designed to enable struggling teachers to function successfully in
the classroom. Should this assistance fail, the district may proceed toward dismissal.
However, teachers first have been afforded every opportunity to improve their practice.
Montgomery County CTs report monthly to a “PAR pair,” a teacher and
administrator on the PAR Panel, regarding the progress of the teachers under their
supervision. During the course of the PAR year, CTs make multiple formal and informal
visits to the classrooms of the teachers with whom they are working and complete three
formal observations. The results of these observations are committed to writing and each
CT presents to the PAR Panel a final summative report on the instructional skills of the
teachers with whom they have worked as well as a recommendation regarding whether

5
the teacher meets or is below standard.
The PAR Panel reviews the data collected by the CT and, in the case of a new
teacher, the evaluation completed by the principal, and makes a formal recommendation
to the superintendent. The recommendation may be that the teacher: 1) be placed in (or
returned to) the regular multi-year professional growth cycle; 2) have a second year of
PAR support; or, 3) be non-renewed (for a novice teacher) or dismissed (for an
experienced teacher).
A Standards-based System
PAR is a standards-based system. CTs’ work is structured around MCPS’
standards of good teaching. Specifically, CTs are responsible for helping the novice and
experienced teachers with whom they work meet MCPS standards 1 through 4. Helping
teachers meet standards 5 and 6 is a joint responsibility of the CT, should the CT’s
observations uncover evidence relevant to these standards, and the principal.

6
MCPS Standards of Effective Teaching
1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.
2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
3. Teachers are responsible for establishing and managing student learning in a positive
environment.
4. Teachers continually assess student progress, analyze the results and adapt instruction
to improve student achievement.
5. Teachers are committed to continuous improvement and professional development.
6. Teachers exhibit a high degree of professionalism.

Teachers must meet these standards to continue to teach in MCPS.

MCPS’ standards of effective teaching serve a crucial function. By their very
existence, they make the case that there is a formal body of knowledge in teaching that
must be nurtured and developed.
MCPS’ teaching standards help CTs frame answers to questions critical to
improving the quality of teaching, including, “How do we know good teaching when we
see it?”, and, “How do we measure, support, and sustain effective practice?”. Standards
also provide the foundation that enables CTs, when necessary, to take the next step,
namely to determine, “What actions do we take with regard to those few of our
colleagues who are not able to meet the standards?”
CTs’ professional judgments are developed as a result, in addition to their own
experience, of extensive PAR training they receive in observation, analysis, and strategies
by which to have difficult conversations with teachers. CTs receive the same Observing
and Analyzing Teaching (OAT) courses offered to principals.

7
 WHAT DO THE DATA REVEAL ABOUT
MCPS’ PAR PROGRAM?
An analysis of the multiple sources of data collected for this evaluation reveals
much about MCPS’ PAR Program. This section of the report presents findings from
these data.

FINDING #1:
PAR EARNS HIGH MARKS FROM PRINCIPALS.

The introduction of PAR programs historically is met in school districts with, at

best, reluctance by principals. Principals initially are leery of the new system and often
see it as a means potentially of diminishing their authority. This situation has been the
same in every school district in which PAR has been initiated.
Typically, however, once the program is up and running, principals come to see
PAR as a means to assist teachers and, in so doing, help them (principals) function more
effectively. This same evolution has been repeated in Montgomery County. While
principals point to some remaining PAR dilemmas (which are discussed in this section of
the report), they by and large see the program as an important contributor to the district’s
ongoing efforts to improve the quality of teaching and as an essential component of the
Professional Growth System.
Principals describe PAR as “rais[ing] the level and improv[ing] the consistency”
of teaching in Montgomery County. As one principal commented, PAR “brings to life
what’s just been theoretical about what good teaching is.”
With regard to novice teachers, principals report that PAR does just what an
induction program is supposed to do: “It brings [new] teachers up to speed more quickly
and gets them out of survival mode.” In fact, principals say that, given the uniqueness
and complexity of many of MCPS’ programs, they would like all teachers new to
Montgomery County, not just those who are new to teaching, to have the services of a
Consulting Teacher available to them.
Where experienced teachers are concerned, when a tenured teacher receives a

8
“below standard” evaluation and is placed in PAR, say principals, the program offers an
honest chance for the teacher to improve. Moreover, no longer is a single individual—the
principal—solely responsible for the struggling teacher’s fate. Principals say they are
grateful that they now have a partner, another set of eyes in the form of the CT in the
work of supporting under-performing teachers and gauging the quality of classroom
instruction.
Principals speak of PAR as giving them a tool they previously lacked. The
program, in effect, clears a space around novice or struggling teachers, giving them room
to grow and improve their practice. Principals readily acknowledge that the structure of
the program, with concentrated CT support, provides “the kind of time I don’t begin to
have to work with new or experienced teachers who are having difficulty in the
classroom.” And principals say they appreciate that the focus of PAR, for both novice
and experienced teachers, is on improving instruction for students: “PAR respects kids.”
Having described principals’ general responses to the PAR program, it is
important to note that principals’ understanding of what constitutes PAR is somewhat
incomplete. In interviews, when questions were raised by the researcher regarding the
PAR program, principals consistently asked, “Do you mean the program for under-
performing teachers?” Principals clearly understand that novice teachers are afforded
the services of a CT, but most principals do not seem to make the connection that
novice teacher support is part of the PAR continuum that includes both novices and
under-performing experienced teachers.
Referral Rate for Experienced Teachers
Since the program began in the 2000-2001 school year, 315 tenured MCPS
teachers have been referred to PAR.3 District officials have raised the question about why
this number is “so low.” Principals were asked precisely this. The answers, varied and
instructive, fall into the six categories of response, described below:
Unwillingness to give up on teachers—The majority of principals are interested
in helping teachers to improve their practice. They believe, “If I just try a little harder,
work a little more with this teacher” things will get better. In MCPS, placing an
experienced teacher in PAR sends a signal that the teacher is at risk of being terminated.4
3
For a more complete, breakdown, see Finding #4 in this report.
4
This issue is sufficiently significant that it is allotted its own finding. See Finding #3.

9
One principal’s comments sum up the views of many: “It’s gut-wrenching. These
[teachers] are not strangers. You know their stories. They’re not evil people.”
Concern that referral to PAR reflects negatively on the principal—A number of
principals expressed concern that referring an experienced teacher to PAR reflects
negatively on them as principals. The teacher being referred is often someone the
principal has selected, or helped to select, for the position at the school. Some significant
fraction of principals believe that if they refer teachers to PAR, it indicates, “we made a
mistake selecting that teacher in the first place” and that “mistake” will translate into
something negative on the principal’s evaluation.
Not wanting to roil school waters—Some principals say that knowledge that an
experienced teacher has been referred to PAR creates tension at the school. “Other
teachers become nervous, or think I’m picking on the teacher.” As a result, some
principals admit, they do not refer teachers who ought to be referred to PAR so as to keep
peace among the faculty.
The time factor—A number of principals admit that they refer fewer tenured
teachers to PAR than might benefit from the assistance because of the time it takes for
them to prepare a submission to the PAR Panel. Principals are required to complete two
formal observations (down from three). Each of these, by some estimates, requires as
long as three hours of the principal’s time. “Sometimes I just miss the deadline because I
don’t get the work done in time,” commented one principal whose remarks spoke for a
number of colleagues.
Holdover concerns about MCEA—A few principals report they are reluctant to
refer experienced teachers to PAR because they are worried, based on history, that
“MCEA will make things difficult”. None of the principals interviewed could point to an
actual instance in which, since the inception of PAR, the union has attempted to stymie
the process. Nevertheless, there is an anticipatory reaction among principals that seems to
make some of them more reluctant than they otherwise might be to recommend tenured
teachers to PAR.
Newness of the system, newness of many principals—Finally, PAR is a
relatively new system for MCPS. Given the staggered implementation of the PGS, some
principals have had a year or two of experience with PAR, but fully one-third of

1
principals began to implement the system just this school year. Compounding the
newness of the system is the newness of many principals. Familiarity and comfort with
the process likely will encourage greater use of it.
CTs and School Communities
Principals report that Consulting Teachers typically are not included on school
leadership teams, and certainly they should not be in a formal sense. Survey results
indicate that just 35 percent of elementary principals, 43 percent of middle school
principals, and a bare 29 percent of high school principals consider CTs to be “important
members of our leadership team.”
On the one hand, this is understandable. CTs are rather transient members of the
school community, not at the school everyday and gone altogether once their work is
completed. However, not including CTs in some way as part of the acknowledged school
leadership (even if not formally part of a leadership team) seems to create other
difficulties. For example, when principals were asked on the survey whether CTs are
“highly respected by my staff,” just over half of elementary and middle school principals
(52% and 57%, respectively) and two-thirds of high school principals (67%) replied in
the affirmative.
In addition, the George Washington University case studies in high schools
revealed tension among high school staff development teachers, resource teachers, and
CTs. This tension, which may be the result of various individuals not understanding the
roles of some of their colleagues or viewing those roles from different vantage points, is
perhaps exacerbated when CTs are considered school “outsiders.”
A related issue was raised by some principals in interviews. While some
principals report that CTs confer regularly with them, a number of others say they rarely
see the CTs who come to their schools and would like to have more frequent
communication with them.
The Elementary Conundrum
For reasons that are not clear (e.g., the data do not elucidate), survey results
suggest that elementary principals are less favorably disposed toward PAR than are
middle school or high school principals. This result was apparent only on the survey. In
interviews, elementary principals expressed no more or fewer concerns about PAR than

1
did their middle and high school colleagues.
As Figure 1 shows, while responses of elementary school principals are not
particularly negative, they are not as strongly positive as those of their middle and high
school colleagues. Elementary principals are somewhat less inclined to consider the PAR
process highly effective or believe that it supports a common vision of effective teaching,
or supports instruction. Fewer than half of elementary principals concur that PAR “makes
me more willing to document under-performing teachers” or “produces decisions with
which I agree.” Again, it is not clear why these results are evident from the survey, but
not from interviews.

1
FIGURE 1
Principals who Strongly Agree/Agree With Indicated Statements About the
PAR Process

The PAR Elementary Middle School High School

Process… Principals Principals Principals

Is a highly effective
56% 67% 73%
process

Makes me more 46% 64% 87%

willing to document
under-performing
teachers

Supports a common
57% 74% 87%
vision of effective
teaching

Provides a means to 61%

83% 81%
offer greater
support to under-
performing teachers

Produces decisions 46% 57% 81%

with which I agree

Supports improved 61% 78% 87%

instruction and
therefore student
achievement

1
FINDING #2:
CTs ARE VALUED FOR THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND EXPERTISE.

On average, each CT works annually with approximately 12 to 13 novice and

experienced teachers in PAR. This number is slightly misleading as an experienced
teacher in PAR is “weighted” as 1.5 teachers. On the other hand, a novice teacher with no
teacher preparation receives no weighting beyond 1.0.
Principals as well as teachers who have had experience with the program concur
that CTs are instructional experts who make PAR work. Principals say they are impressed
with the quality of CTs and the caliber of their work. Commented one principal, “I was a
skeptic [about PAR]. The CT made me a believer.”
CT support is intensive and consistent, strategic and customized. It allows new
teachers to hit the ground running, and provides experienced teachers with an opportunity
to improve their practice and remain in their chosen profession.
CT support also seems to be important in new teacher retention. Commented one
relatively new teacher who had participated in PAR, “I don’t think I would have stayed
[in the district] without CT support.”
PAR helps to socialize novice teachers to MCPS. Said one of the novice teachers
who was interviewed for this evaluation, “[CTs] know how to deal with everyday
problems like classroom management.” CTs also provide novice teachers with a practical
cast to MCPS’ standards of good teaching: “They help us to see what they [the standards]
look like in operation. They help us understand what good teaching looks like.”
As regular visitors to the teachers with whom they work, CTs are credited with
contributing significantly to increasing novice teachers’ capacity to make good
professional decisions: “They help define the role of the teacher with reasons why
something works or doesn’t.” As one principal commented, “I can’t offer the level of
support CTs can. They really make a difference.”

1
 As Figure 2 shows, principals across-the-board give CTs high marks on a number
of significant dimensions surveyed, including supporting teachers, “viewing teachers’
strengths and weaknesses similarly to how administrators view them,” and “being valued
by teachers being served.” They laud CTs for “supporting continuous improvement” and
agree that CTs are key to improving instruction
FIGURE 2
Percentage of Administrators who Strongly Agree/Agree with Indicated
Statements About CTs

CTs… Elementary Middle School High School

Principals Principals Principals

Are highly effective

supporting teachers 89% 93% 100%

View teachers’
strengths and 84% 93% 85%
weaknesses
similarly to how
administrators view
them

Are valued by
teachers being 73% 67% 85%
served

Are an essential
resource for 84% 93% 100%
supporting
continuous
improvement

Are vital to
improving 93% 93% 100%
instructional
practices of
teachers being
served

Importantly, principals indicated in interviews that CTs do not have difficulty making the
hard choices, including recommending, if the evidence so indicates, that an individual—

1
novice or experienced—does not belong in teaching.
It might be expected that experienced teachers who have participated in PAR
would have fewer positive words for CTs. After all, tenured teacher PAR participants are
typically instructors of many years in MCPS who had a history of “satisfactory”
evaluations until PAR came along. They might be expected to be resentful of the
attention and assistance.
While this may be true for some of the tenured PAR recipients, those who agreed
to be interviewed for this evaluation did not generally express this sentiment. A few were
convinced that they were in PAR simply because, “The principal was out to get me.” But
most were grateful for CT assistance (at least once it was over, if not during the process).
“I’m a better teacher because of PAR” seemed to be the prevailing point of view.
CT Training and Support
CTs report that Observing and Analyzing Teaching (OAT) prepares them well for
their role. And they feel well supported by colleague CTs, the lead CTs, and PAR Pairs
as they do their daily work. Preparation and support pay off in demonstrable ways. As the
July 2002 validity study conducted by MCPS’ Office of Shared Accountability revealed,
CTs’ written reports convey “success in articulating the areas ... for which they are most
responsible and might be viewed as setting the standard for how comparable sections of
evaluation reports [by administrators] can be written” (Gross, et.al., 2002). This study
suggested, in other words, that CTs’ reports displayed more fidelity to MCPS standards
than did principals’ write-ups.
A couple of areas, however, suggest themselves as candidates for further CT
training.
Reinforcing Developmental Expectations
Some principals as well as novice teachers who have completed PAR noted that
CTs’ expectations are sometimes too high, that they sometimes expect a brand new
teacher to function as a veteran does. MCPS has made the decision to have one set of
standards apply to all teachers, regardless of years of experience.5 However, CTs need to
be mindful that new teachers will not, and cannot, behave exactly as their more
experienced colleagues do. New teachers ought to be held to high standards of practice.
5
Some PAR programs, such as that in Poway, California, have developed graduated standards that become
more complex as teachers gain added experience.

1
At the same time, however, there needs to be at least an implicit recognition that novices
are not experts, that they will gain expertise with experience, and that the practice of
beginners will be different from that of veterans.
In that vein, some novice teachers indicated that their CTs assigned them
“homework,” additional work beyond their classroom responsibilities. Learning to teach
is a hard enough job. CTs should be counseled not to add to novice teachers’ workload
unless such additional work is essential to the routines of learning to teach well.
Legal Implications of CT Reports
CTs themselves suggest that they would be advantaged by having more complete
information about the legal ramifications of their work. What does a dismissal case look
like? What kind of evidence is likely to hold up in a hearing and what kind is likely not to
be useful? Are there particular kinds of turns of phrase that are helpful or harmful in
written documentation?
CTs do not want to become lawyers. But they do want a clearer understanding of
the points at which their work and the law intersect.
The Collaborative Nature of PAR
Finally, a number of CTs are not fully cognizant of the collaborative nature of
PAR. They do not understand the union’s role in shaping and implementing the program
and sometimes position themselves in opposition to positions they believe MCEA will
take. A clearer understanding of MCEA’s stake in and support for PAR should help to
reduce friction that occasionally arises, as will good faith efforts on the part of both
MCPS and MCEA to ensure that CT training itself is collaborative.
Evaluators or Not?
After nearly three years of PAR implementation, there remains a lack of clarity in
MCPS regarding the role of CTs. Are they evaluators or not? This lack of clarity extends
to principals, PAR participants, and sometimes to CTs themselves.
Most principals, for their part, do not consider CTs to be evaluators. They
describe CTs as “support providers” and “facilitators.” They speak of CTs collecting and
analyzing data on teacher performance and conducting a kind of “gap analysis” to
determine what teachers in the program need and providing it to them.6
6
Another dilemma, not expressly mentioned by principals, involves state law. Most state collective
bargaining laws preclude one member of a bargaining unit from evaluating another member of that same

1
 It is not surprising that some principals would be reluctant to see CTs as
evaluators. Evaluation historically has been the province of administrators. Any change
in this structure might appear to signal a shift in the balance of authority. Moreover, as
principals are precluded from using any of the work of CTs in their own evaluation
write-ups, in principals’ eyes, the significance of CT written documentation is somewhat
diluted.
Novice and experienced teachers under CTs’ supervision are clearer that CTs’
work is evaluative. Actually, most see CTs in a dual role, as advocates for them and as
evaluators of them. However, they, too, sometimes feel a bit torn as they experience
multiple reviewers—CTs, principals, and, in high schools, Resource Teachers. These
PAR teachers sometimes receive mixed messages from these various individuals about
what components of their practice are effective and which are less so and they have no
way to determine to whose message they need to pay closest attention.
And CTs themselves sometimes express some ambivalence about whether or not
they are evaluators. Some CTs view the support role as their essential function and are
reluctant even to use the word, “evaluation.” Other CTs see evaluation as a clear part of
their role.
From where does this confusion about the CTs’ role stem? The answer can be
found in history, evolving tradition, and in the messages communicated to various
stakeholders by MCPS.
The school system sends mixed signals about PAR. For example, despite the
rhetoric about shared accountability, principals believe the system has told them, in no
uncertain terms, that they alone are accountable for school results. How, then, can they
reasonably be expected to cede responsibility for performance appraisal to someone,
such as a CT, whose role does not, in the same way, land him or her on the
accountability hot seat?
The system further complicates matters by displaying a certain amount of
schizophrenia in its electronic and printed materials. MCPS’ website states, “Principals
are in charge of the normal evaluation process of the school.” It is the principal’s

unit. California and Ohio have overcome this problem, Ohio by removing the restriction on inter-
bargaining unit evaluation and California by enacting a separate law specifically to deal with peer review
programs.

1
evaluation of a tenured teacher that can lead to that individual being placed in PAR, and
it is the principal who currently evaluates first-year teachers.
However, pages 17-18 of the 2003-2004 PGS Handbook state that, among CT
duties, is responsibility for, “making a recommendation regarding future employment for
the probationary [and] … for the experienced teacher.” This description sounds
suspiciously like evaluation. The equivocation about who is responsible for evaluation
and under what circumstances that is evident in the district’s printed and electronic PAR
materials contributes to ongoing confusion that is not healthy for the program.
How have other districts that have implemented PAR programs solved the
evaluator dilemma? In every other PAR program, CTs function as evaluators for the
teachers, beginning and experienced, for whom they have responsibility. The name of
the program—peer assistance and review—connotes the twin purposes of performance
appraisal. Assistance indicates help and support in the formative stage. Review implies
decision-making, the summative component of evaluation.
In every PAR program of significant duration (a decade or more)—Toledo,
Cincinnati, Columbus, Poway, Rochester—Consulting Teachers conduct summative
reviews of the first-year teachers with whom they work (principals take over in the
second year) and conduct the summative reviews of the tenured teachers in the program.
As in Montgomery County, CTs in each of these districts present their accumulated
evidence to an administrator-teacher PAR Panel. The Panel makes a formal job action
recommendation to the superintendent and the superintendent to the school board.
On Making Better Use of Teacher Expertise
PAR is organized such that, once CTs have completed their three-year rotations,
they return to a teaching position. The reasoning is that PAR ought to serve as a means to
keep excellent teachers in teaching, rather than serving as a stepping-stone out of
teaching and into administration.
But it is also the case that CTs, as a result of their PAR experience, develop
important leadership skills. They learn how to work and communicate effectively with
adults. They develop skills both to provide support and reassurance and to say the hard
things. They become more adept not just at being excellent teachers, but at explaining to
others the details of good practice and the reasons for instructional decisions. These skills

1
could be brought to bear on school settings, contributing more powerfully to educational
improvement. At present, however, perhaps in part because the situation is so new, the
district has not devised an effective way to use CTs’ expertise in post-CT roles. The
transition from the CT role is awkward, at best, as CTs try to locate positions for which
they are eligible. “Eligibility” is not well-defined, leading to confusion and frustration
among CTs about to move back to teacher roles.
PAR opens a door for MCPS. The district, through CTs, has a new cadre of
leaders, teacher leaders. The task now is to find a way to make use of CTs’ skills and
expertise in ways that create new definitions of teacher leadership and expand the
educational reach of these individuals. This is not to suggest that CTs ought to end their
rotations by becoming administrators. That would run counter to the intent of the effort.
But surely creative ways can be devised that would enable former CTs to serve as
resources for instructional improvement while still remaining in roles that fall within the
boundaries of the teacher bargaining unit.

2
FINDING #3:
MCPS’ PAR PROGRAM IS DESIGNED FOR TEACHERS IN SERIOUS
PROFESSIONAL JEOPARDY.

In MCPS, a tenured teacher who is identified for PAR is considered one whose
job is in substantial jeopardy. Results of interviews with teachers and principals indicate
that being placed in PAR in Montgomery County serves as a clear signal that a teacher is
on the verge of being terminated. And this perception is reinforced by the language of the
PGS Handbook which states on page 16: “… Referral to .. PAR indicate[s] that the
teacher is seriously at risk. PAR is not designed for teachers who could simply use some
improvement in their teaching techniques.”
CT Assist, perhaps originally intended to provide support and assistance to
experienced teachers in less dire professional circumstances, has not developed that way.
In order to be eligible for CT Assist, a teacher needs to be identified as requiring
“extensive support” and then becomes the subject of a special evaluation. Neither
teachers nor principals view CT Assist as intended for teachers who could use just a bit of
colleague support. It is a way station leading toward more formal placement in PAR and
that, as has been noted, is an indicator that termination is a real possibility.
District officials seem to agree that PAR should be about helping to bring all
teachers up to standard. The program can serve as an acknowledgement that when the
rules of the game changed for students (higher academic standards, more rigorous
curriculum and assessments), they changed for teachers as well. Standards-based teaching
requires new skills, not because teachers lack professional competence, but because new
circumstances call for new kinds of expertise.
Other PAR programs have evolved components specifically targeted to teachers
who need modestly to improve their practice either because they were prepared for
teaching prior to the introduction of the kinds of standards that exist today or because

2
they find themselves teaching a grade level or subject they have not previously taught.
Rochester, New York, for example, offers Professional Support as an identified PAR
option. Participation is by self-referral only and is limited to two semesters. Teachers
who are accepted for this program component (the PAR Panel makes the decision) are
assigned a CT who provides the requisite support and assistance.
Professional Support in Rochester is non-threatening and non-punitive. The
program is designed to provide, as the name implies, “support”. Involvement is not
noted in the teacher’s personnel file.
Toledo and Columbus have similar arrangements. CT support is offered to
teachers on request. It is not triggered by a “special evaluation”. The types of supportive
arrangements available in Rochester, Toledo, and Columbus open the door to
professional consultation. They help to break the curious but pervasive code of silence in
teaching whereby teachers generally are not encouraged to ask for help. A PAR
component such as Professional Support makes it not just acceptable, but an expected
part of a teacher’s professional obligation to seek out assistance from colleagues.

FINDING #4:
RESULTS OF MCPS’ PAR PROGRAM ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF
PAR PROGRAMS IN OTHER DISTRICTS.

The PAR programs used in this section for comparative purposes have been in
existence for at least a decade-and-a-half: Cincinnati (1985), Columbus (1985), Poway
(1987), Rochester (1987), and Toledo (1981). The districts vary considerably in size. In
terms of the number of teachers, of the comparison districts (not counting Montgomery
County, which is the largest at nearly 11,000), teacher populations among these districts
range from approximately 1600 in Poway to 3700 in Columbus.
Available data make it possible to conduct some very modest comparisons of
PAR programs on dimensions such as average annual percent of first-year novice
teachers in PAR who are not renewed; cumulative number of under-performing
experienced teachers referred to PAR, and outcomes for under-performing tenured

2
teachers who participate in PAR. These data are displayed in Figure 3. The numbers in
parentheses in the category, “Number of under-performing teachers in PAR” indicates the
number of under-performing teachers in PAR as a percentage of the total teaching
population in the district.
As can be seen Montgomery County’s results on the measured dimensions are
similar to those of the comparison districts, with the exception that a smaller percentage
of under-performing MCPS experienced teachers has thus far been referred to PAR.
However, it should be noted that available data allow only a comparison of the
cumulative number of experienced teachers referred to PAR. In the case of Montgomery
County, far fewer years of program experience are available so the numbers would be
expected to be smaller.

2
FIGURE 3
PAR Comparative Statistics

Avg. % 1st. Total # under- % under- % PAR under-

year PAR performing performing performing
novice teachers teachers teachers
successful referred to improved removed from
completions PAR classroom7

Cincinnati 97% 201 23% 77.2%

Columbus 97% 211 41% 59%

Mont. County 87% 3158 52% 22%9

Poway 95% 14 100% 0%

Rochester 92% 80 90% 10%

Toledo 92% 75 38% 62%

A further examination of MCPS PAR statistics (see Figure 4) reveals no apparent

disproportionate program impact on teachers by race. Data maintained by the district are
rather incomplete, so these statistics are somewhat more problematic than others;
nevertheless, they paint a picture of a program relatively balanced by race and ethnicity
as per proportions in the district.

7
“Removal” indicates resignation, retirement, leave, and dismissal.
8
It should be noted that these are cumulative figures which would be expected to be lower for Montgomery
County as MCPS’ program is of significantly shorter duration than are the PAR programs in the other
districts.
9
This number indicates disposition after one year in PAR. The remaining nearly 25% are referred to PAR
for a second year. Approximately half of MCPS tenured teachers referred to PAR continue in the program
for a second year.

2
FIGURE 4
Tenured Teachers Referred to PAR by Race/Ethnicity

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

Tenured Teachers Referred 32 43 45

White No data 28 (65%) 34 (75.5%)

African-American No data 10 (23%) 7 (15.5%)

Asian No data 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hispanic No data 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Unknown No data 5 (11.5%) 4 (8.8%)

Montgomery County includes a PAR component not common to other PAR

programs. That is, that a probationary teacher who, after the first year, receives a below
standard evaluation, is eligible to be placed in PAR. Figure 5 displays the results
achieved. As can be seen, the vast majority (72%) of probationary teachers who enter
PAR as a result of being rated under-performing succeed, with the services of a CT, in
bringing their practice up to standard.
FIGURE 5
MCPS Year 2 and 3 Probationary Teachers in PAR as a Result of Below
Standard Evaluation 2000-2003

# of Teachers Successful Resignations/ Remain in PAR

Completions Dismissals Second Year

150 108 (72%) 20 (13.3%) 16 (10.7%)

2
FINDING #5:
THE PAR PANEL SERVES AS AN EFFECTIVE GOVERNING
BODY FOR THE PROGRAM.

MCPS’ PAR Panel functions as an effective program decision-making body. An

observer at Panel meetings who did not know the day-to-day roles of various members
(teacher or administrator) would be hard-pressed to discern these roles by listening to
Panel discussions. Attention of Panel members is focused on the evidence being
presented by CTs or principals. Discussions revolve around assessments of instructional
quality. The Panel asks questions and takes the necessary time to come to informed
decisions. As one Panel member indicated, Panel decisions are “driven by facts, not
feelings”.
Principals seem to be developing increasing trust in Panel decisions. At the outset
of the program, some principals worried that the Panel, though evenly split between
teachers and administrators, would give short shrift to principals’ perspectives and render
decisions that tended to favor teachers. Principals interviewed for this evaluation report
that the Panel decisions of which they are aware give them increasing confidence that
decisions are, indeed, based on evidence and do not display favoritism for either teachers
or administrators.
The evolution of MCPS’ PAR Panel—from an initial period of rockiness early on
to a smoothly functioning, collegial body—mirrors the maturation of PAR Panels in other
districts. Initially Panel members are somewhat leery of one another, administrators not
sure whether to trust teachers’ sincerity and willingness to make the hard decisions,
teachers are worried that administrator members may not be as focused on improving
teacher quality as the teacher members consider themselves to be. Over time, these
concerns resolve themselves as the Panel becomes a seamless decision making body.
This same kind of evolution is evident with regard to MCPS’ PAR Panel.
None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that PAR Panel discussions are devoid

2
of debate. They are not. But debate is neither frivolous nor taken lightly. It focuses on the
central purpose of PAR—improving the quality of teaching.
Two concerns were expressed by Panel members. One was the lack of
socialization for new members who join the Panel. Apparently, the first meeting
constitutes the training. Panel members expressed the desire for more formal initiation
procedures.
The second issue involves open-ended terms. Current Panel members serve for
indefinite periods of time. Some expressed a desire for term limits, both to give others an
opportunity to serve on the Panel and to insure that Panel members do not burn out.
PAR Pairs
PAR Pairs represent a nice addition to MCPS’ program. Not typical in other PAR
programs, PAR Pairs provide CTs with an important support system internal to the
program. They function as a kind of touchstone by which CTs can gauge the
effectiveness of the support they are providing to the teachers with whom they work.
PAR Pairs also provide expert guidance to CTs as CTs consider the options available to
them as they prepare their job status recommendations to the full PAR Panel.
Panel Compensation
As several individuals interviewed for this evaluation noted, Panel compensation
is not equal across Panel members. Teacher members received annual stipends of $1,000,
modest by any standard given the amount of time they devote to Panel responsibilities.
Administrator members of the Panel, however, are compensated even less well.
Principals who serve as members of the PAR Panel receive no monetary
compensation. They are, instead, afforded the services of a retired principal for 20 days
during the course of a school year. Some principal Panel members expressed
dissatisfaction with this arrangement.

2
FINDING #6:
PAR REFLECTS COLLABORATION ON MULTIPLE LEVELS.

Implementation of peer assistance and review seems to be having a positive effect

on furthering Montgomery County’s efforts to infuse professional collaboration
throughout the system. Collaboration is reflected on both organizational and individual
levels.
The involvement of both MCAASP and MCEA in designing the PAR program
and appointing members to the PAR Panel reflects a significant level of organizational
cooperation. For both of these organizations, PAR represents a new direction. For
MCAASP, accepting PAR demonstrates administrators’ willingness to give teachers
access to a domain that formerly was the sole province of principals. For MCEA,
embracing peer review means that the teachers’ union now is obliged to protect the
profession of teaching as fiercely as it historically has protected the rights of individual
teachers. This situation results in some continuing tension as MCEA staff members
continue to try to discern their role vis a vis CTs.
Conversations between CTs and principals are, for the most part, collegial. These
individuals, who represent different positions on the district’s organizational chart, find
common ground in their commitment to improving the quality of teaching in
Montgomery County.
Whether PAR is “officially” a teacher evaluation program or not in MCPS, there
is little question that it has changed the nature of evaluation for novice teachers and for
under-performing experienced teachers. Assisting first-year teachers and paying the kind
of close attention to struggling tenured teachers that is warranted is no longer either
combative or adversarial. PAR has helped to infuse the ethos of support and improvement
throughout a program that by any other name is still evaluative in nature.
Finally, conversations between CTs and the novice and experienced teachers with
whom they work is collaborative and focused squarely on instructional issues. The

2
intensity and consistency of this work helps to shape, or reshape, professional
conversations. “Teacher talk” in Montgomery County seems increasingly to center on
instruction and student issues. PAR deserves some of the credit for this outcome.

FINDING #7:
ADDITIONAL TIME AND EFFORT ARE REQUIRED FOR PAR TO BE FULLY
ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE MCPS SCHOOL CULTURE.

Peer assistance and review is a significant departure from conventional ways of

doing business. At a minimum, PAR introduces uncertainty about traditional roles. Do
teachers now become evaluators? What role should principals assume and under what
circumstances?
PAR changes expectations about organizational roles. Both the teachers’ and
administrators’ unions engage in collaborative activity with which they previously may
have had little experience.
In addition, PAR was not introduced in MCPS as a stand-alone program. It came
in as part of the more comprehensive, and more complicated, Professional Growth
System.
It is not surprising, then, that not all members of the MCPS community fully
endorse PAR. As interviews suggest, some are still nervous about the ways in which
various functional roles will play themselves out. Others wonder whether PAR is simply
another MCPS reform that will be here one day and gone the next. Still others have had
less-than-favorable experiences with the program, and these experiences color their
perception of the program overall. A couple of principals, for example, say the process
is so complicated, they have not been able to make it work for them. A few teachers
have had less-than-ideal experiences with their CTs.
However, as this section of the report has demonstrated, PAR, on balance, is quite
well accepted, and very much appreciated by a wide array of individuals that have had
contact with it—administrators, novice teachers, struggling experienced teachers, and
those who function as Consulting Teachers. That PAR, at this still relatively early stage

2
of its implementation, is so well received and demonstrating such positive results is a
testament to the organizations and individuals who have worked so hard to build the
program.

The next section of this report uses the findings presented in this section to shape
a set of recommendations, actions Montgomery County might consider as it continues to
enhance the effectiveness of its PAR program.

3
 WHAT KINDS OF PAR PROGRAM REVISIONS DO THE DATA
SUGGEST MONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSIDER?

Given the preceding section on Findings, what kinds of changes do the data
suggest MCPS consider with regard to its PAR program?

RECOMMENDATION #1:
MCPS SHOULD WORK WITH PRINCIPALS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO
RECOMMEND UNDER-PERFORMING TEACHERS TO PAR.

PAR data strongly suggest that, other communication notwithstanding, principals

believe the message communicated to them by the district is that they (principals) alone
are responsible and accountable for school improvement. As a result, they are more
reluctant than they otherwise might be to share duties that could impact school outcomes.
This situation contributes to the problem of the anemic referral rate of under-
performing experienced teachers to PAR. The school system should work with
principals to encourage them to recommend under-performing teachers to PAR and
must assure principals that appropriate recommendations to PAR will not reflect
negatively on principals’ own evaluations The fact that principals believe such
recommendations reflect negatively on them is enough to tamp down the number of
teachers who might be recommended to and might be helped by the program. A caution:
At the same time that the district encourages principals to recommend under-performing
teachers to PAR, the district must also be careful not to allow such encouragement to be
translated into a quota system in which principals are judged less effective the fewer
experienced teachers they refer to PAR.
MCPS should also work with principals to assist them to find ways
appropriately to involve CTs as respected members of school communities. To the
extent that principals show by word and deed that CTs are valued members of the school

3
community, they will contribute to the perception among the faculty as a whole that CTs
are part of the support team dedicated to school improvement. In particular, the district
should work with principals to devise strategies better to coordinate the activities of the
professional support staff, including CTs, staff development teachers, and resource
teachers.
Finally, cooperative responsibility for school improvement could be enhanced if
CT and principals develop an appropriate communication strategy This is not as easy as
it sounds. On the one hand, CTs need to maintain their independence. Their credibility is
weakened if they are seen as agents of the principal. On the other hand, principals need to
know what is going on in their school. Thus, CTs and principals need to engage in
communication that is appropriate, but does not jeopardize the hard-earned trust CTs
have developed with the teachers with whom they work.

RECOMMENDATION #2:
CLARIFY THE ROLE OF CTs. ASSIGN THEM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
SUMMATIVE REVIEW OF FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS.

It is time for Montgomery County to clarify the role of CTs. The issue is most
pressing where first-year teachers are concerned.10 The recommendation made here is
that the CT prepare the summative review of first-year teachers, as is the case in other
peer review programs operating throughout the country.
This could be accomplished in the following manner: For each first-year teacher,
the CT would complete three formal observations and the principal one. The CT would
prepare the summative review; the principal would reserve the right to challenge the CT’s
assessment before the PAR Panel should the CT and principal disagree. But the principal
would not be obligated to prepare a formal evaluation of the first-year teacher unless the
principal does not agree with the CT’s assessment. The principal would assume
responsibility for evaluation once the teacher reaches the second year of service. This
arrangement is consonant with other successful PAR programs operating around the
10
MCPS’ PAR program is organized such that, once an under-performing teacher is referred to PAR, the
CT handles the evaluation of that individual.

3
country. In addition, novice teachers who come to PAR with neither the background
nor training for teaching ought to be “weighted” as 1.5 for calculating CTs’ caseload.
No changes are recommended with regard to the evaluation of under-performing
experienced teachers in PAR.

RECOMMENDATION #3:
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION OF CT FINAL REPORTS.

As matters now stand, CTs’ summative reports are neither included in teachers’
personnel files nor can the information contained in them, or gathered for them, be used
in principals’ observation write-ups. On the one hand, this makes sense. CT’s work
should stand alone. CTs do not want to be viewed as arms of the principal. On the other
hand, not including CT reports in teachers’ personnel files seems substantially to
diminish the import of that work.
MCPS and MCEA should begin conversations to determine the appropriate
disposition of CT reports. The goal of these conversations should be to determine the
extent, if any, to which principals can make use of CT reports, as well as the terminal
location of CT final reports.

RECOMMENDATION #4:
PROVIDE TARGETED “REFRESHER” TRAINING FOR CTs

PAR evaluation data suggest three areas in which CTs would benefit from
additional training. First, CTs should be offered a refresher course on the subject of
developmental expectations for teachers. In other words, CTs ought officially to be
reminded that novice teachers, while being held to high standards of practice,
nevertheless are novices. Their teaching should not be expected perfectly to mirror that
of their more experienced colleagues. This might be a useful new component of the
summer training CTs receive at the beginning of their service.

3
 Second, CTs should be provided with the opportunity to become better
acquainted with the legal ramifications of their work. Some modest training in the law
surrounding dismissal evidence and procedures would be helpful to CTs as they do their
work.
Third, CTs need to understand more clearly the nature of MCPS-MCEA PAR
collaboration.

RECOMMENDATION #5:
DEVELOP MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS TO USE CT EXPERIENCE IN
POST-CT SCHOOL-BASED ROLES.

MCPS, in concert with MCEA, should develop a repertoire of roles CTs can
assume once they complete their CT rotations. Using teacher expertise well and wisely
ought to be a goal that can enhance the development of what is now MCPS’ fledgling
career lattice.
The program should not be altered to enable former CTs immediately to become
administrators. But a range of school-based teacher leader roles for which CTs would be
eligible ought to be devised.

RECOMMENDATION #6:
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A VOLUNTARY PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT
COMPONENT OF PAR.

MCPS has expressed an interest in providing larger numbers of experienced

teachers with the opportunity to benefit from the kind of support provided by CTs. In
particular, district officials would like to see not only truly under-performing teachers,
but also those that might more properly be classified as “mediocre” or personally
desirous of improvement able to avail themselves of support and assistance.
As the data have shown, however, the way in which MCPS’ PAR program is

3
structured, requiring either a formal designation of “under-performing” or a special
evaluation to be considered for PAR, leads to the assumption on the part of teachers and
principals that PAR is a step on the road to termination.
If MCPS wants larger numbers of experienced teachers to avail themselves of
PAR, it would be well advised to develop a new PAR component that is voluntary and
not related to potential dismissal. The district might take a page from the books of
Rochester, Toledo, or Columbus and develop a Professional Support arm of PAR.
Should MCPS take this route, the district will need to be mindful of the other kinds of
supports currently available to teachers, including Staff Development Teachers and
reading and mathematics coaches, and will need to ensure that effort are supplementary
rather than duplicative.
Should the district pursue this route, careful attention will need to be devoted to
“marketing” the new PAR element so that principals and teachers clearly understand its
purpose and intent.

RECOMMENDATION #7:
ALTER COMPENSATION AND TRAINING ARRANGEMENTS FOR AND
TERMS OF PAR PANEL MEMBERS.

All members of the PAR Panel ought to receive the same compensation. There is
no justifiable reason to pay principal members of the PAR Panel less than teacher
members. Principal members of the PAR Panel ought to receive monetary
compensation commensurate with that provided to their teacher member colleagues.
MCPS, MCEA, and MCAASP ought to design a reasonable orientation program
for new Panel members to acquaint them with their roles, responsibilities, and relevant
operational PAR procedures so that new members can more quickly assume their duties.
Finally, Montgomery County ought to consider term limits for Panel members.
Four-to-five-year staggered terms would seem reasonable and are in keeping with the
experiences of other PAR programs.

3
 CONCLUSION
“If we do not step up to the challenge of finding and supporting the best teachers, we will
undermine everything else we are trying to do to improve our schools.”

Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.

Chairman, The Teaching Commission
Former Chairman, IBM

MCPS’ Peer Assistance and Review program contributes significantly to a teacher

development system designed to identify teaching strengths and assist in improving
weaknesses among the current teacher workforce. For novice teachers, PAR offers the
kind of supported induction research indicates is critical. PAR serves a dual purpose
with regard to faltering experienced teachers. It provides them with critical support and
assistance and, if that does not do the trick, provides a fair and credible means of
removing them from the classroom. In sum, PAR provides the district with the
opportunity to improve the quality of teaching while cultivating teacher potential and
teacher leadership.
PAR also represents an important demonstration of teachers assuming collective
responsibility for instructional quality. It brings teaching more in line with other
professions, such as law and medicine, in which the members of the profession define
and enforce standards of practice as part of their ethical responsibility to the individuals
they serve.
One reasonable question to ask that has not thus far been the subject of this
evaluation is, “Does PAR improve student achievement?” The answer is more
complicated than the question. It is reasonable to assume a contributory impact of PAR.
In other words, a system which provides concentrated support to novice teachers, helps
to identify under-performing experienced teachers, provides assistance to those teachers,
and attaches consequences to any failure on their part to improve, cannot help but
contribute to better prepared, more qualified teachers. And better teaching is key to
improved student learning.
So what if PAR were to disappear? Rumors abound in MCPS that perhaps PAR is
an expendable component of the PGS, that not much would be lost if the program were

3
disbanded. Data in this evaluation have made a reasonable case that PAR contributes in
significant ways to a number of important MCPS goals—improved teaching,
collegiality, and an ethic of continuous improvement. So the district must carefully
consider the ramifications of eliminating PAR.
The question that immediately arises is, “If not PAR, then what?” In other words,
what, if anything, would take its place? The most likely answer seems to be that MCPS
would go back to business as usual with regard to novice teachers and under-performing
experienced teachers. Novices would have little or no support at the beginning of their
careers. Under-performing experienced teachers, if they were identified at all (and the
likelihood is that, as before PAR, they would go unidentified) would receive no
assistance and would persist as sub-standard teachers. This is not a pretty picture. Surely
it is not one MCP seriously wants to contemplate.

3
 REFERENCES

(Not all of the references below are specifically cited in the report. However, all were
used as background data.)

Anderson, L.W. and Pellicer, L.O. (2001). Teacher peer assistance and review: A
practical guide for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.

Bachrach, S.B., Conley, S.C., and Shedd, J.B. (1990). Evaluating teachers for career
awards and merit pay. In Darling-Hammond, L. and Millman, J. (1990). Handbook
of teacher evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Bridges, E.M. and Gumport, P.J. (1984). The dismissal of tenured teachers for
incompetence. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Institute for Research on
Educational Finance and Governance.

Brophy, J.E. and Evertson, C.M. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental
perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Coker, H., Medley, D.M., and Soar, R.S. (1980). How valid are expert opinions about
effective teaching? Phi Delta Kappan, (62) 2 , 131-134, 149.

Copland, M.A. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal.” Phi Delta Kappan. 82(7): 528-
533.

Cuban, l. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E.., and Pease, S.R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the
organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
52:3, 285-328.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Peer review in the context of teacher professionalism.

Paper prepared for the Executive Council of the American Federation of Teachers.

Gross, Susan, Terry Alban, and Suzanne Merchkinksy (July 2002). Validity Study of
Observation and Evaluation Reports: Phase 1 Schools. Rockville, MD: Montgomery
County Public Schools.

Koppich, J. Spotlighting teacher quality: A review of teacher evaluation (2000). Paper

prepared for the K-12 Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of
Teachers.

Koppich, J., Asher, C., and Kerchner, C. (2001) Developing a Career, Builiding a
Profession: The Rochester Career in Teaching Program. NY: National Commission

3
 on Teaching and America’s Future.

Lieberman, M. Teachers evaluating teachers: Peer review and the new unionism (1998).
Bowling Green, OH: Social Philosophy and Policy Center.

Little, J.W. (1998). Assessing the prospects for teacher leadership. In A. Lieberman,
Building a professional culture in schools. NY: Teachers College Press.

Manatt, R.P. and Daniels, B. (1990). Relationships between principals’ ratings of teacher
performance and student achievement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 4:189-201.

McGreal, T. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for

Curriculum and Development.

McLaughlin, M.W. and Pfeifer, S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement,

accountability, and effective teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Millman, J. and Sykes, G. (1992). The assessment of teaching based on evidence of

student learning: An analysis. Paper prepared for the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards.

Montgomery County Public Schools. www.mcps.k12.md.us.

Peer Assistance and Review: Working Models Across the Country (March 2000).
Sacramento: Office of the Secretary of Education, California Department of
Education.

Peterson, K.D. (1987) Teacher evaluation with multiple and variable lines of evidence.
American Educational Research Journal, 24: 311-317.

Professional Growth System Handbook 2003-2004. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County

Public Schools.

Shavelson, R. and Dempsey-Atwood, N. (1976). General theory of measures of teaching

behavior. Review of Educational Research, 46, 553-611.

Shulman, L. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a

period of educational reform. Educational Leadership, 46 (3), 36-41.

Teaching at risk: A call to action (2004). New York: The Teaching Commission.

The peer assistance and review reader (2000). Gary Bloom and Jennifer Goldstein, eds.
Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz.

The Professional Growth System in Montgomery County: Building Professional

3
 Community in Schools (2001). Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.

What matters most: Teaching for America’s future (1996). New York: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Wise, A., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M.W., and Bernstein, H. (1984). Teacher
evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.