{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009523809523809525, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.615384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Holding Teachers Accountable: Principals’ Perceptions of the Alignment of Value-Added Metrics with Evaluations of Teacher Quality

Through interviews of administrators in a large urban school district, this study qualitatively examines how school principals think about teacher quality and how these perceptions align with two assessment mechanisms in place in their district – their own formal evaluations of teachers and value-added metrics. This study presents the views of administrators on the uses and usefulness of the two methods of assessment and their perceptions of alignment and the extent to which either method should be used in tandem or independently to make decisions about accountability. Administrators indicate that the two methods assess different components of teacher quality but that both methods commonly identify the same high and low quality teachers with each assessment method complimenting and justifying the other.