If growth and appraisal systems are designed to improve teaching, why do so many feel like compliance exercises instead of catalysts for better learning? A system only works when it leads to better teaching practices that educators actually use, not another layer of paperwork that produces compliance. If the goal is improved learning for students, then the system must feel credible, practical, and worth the effort to the professionals doing the work.
The research is consistent here: teachers want feedback that is student-impact centered, timely, trustworthy, non-threatening and grounded in multiple credible measures (Guskey & Link, 2022; Kane et al., 2013). And the stakes are larger than many realize. Improving teaching quality shows measurable benefits that extend well beyond test scores and into adulthood (Chetty et al., 2014). One of the core responsibilities of leaders in schools is to ensure that students have the best teachers we can possibly put in front of them.
But research also reinforces a critical condition schools often underestimate: growth and appraisal influence instructional quality only when embedded in professional cultures of trust, support, and follow-through. Growth and appraisal cannot be isolated events or end-of-year paperwork exercises (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Kraft & Papay, 2014).
This is the throughline we care about most: If it doesn’t improve the learning experience of students, why are we doing it? We invest significant time in growth and appraisal systems, and we must ask ourselves: Is the effort worth the impact? If that question resonates with you, it may be time to ask how we can do this important process better.
What Teachers Want, and Why: Core Findings from Key Research on Teacher Growth and Appraisal
Feedback teachers can trust because it fits their context
Teachers are skeptical (and rightly so) of generic claims like “this works” when the evidence doesn’t reflect their classroom, their students, or their curriculum. They tend to trust classroom-embedded evidence more than delayed, large-scale assessments that arrive too late or feel disconnected from what they’re teaching (Guskey & Link, 2022). Teachers need feedback on what moves they are making instructionally, not just snapshots of their teaching but conscious goal-oriented work they are creating to impact student learning.
Design implication: A credible growth system must anchor feedback in a shared, role-relevant language of practice (clear standards or expectations) and connect feedback claims to evidence teachers recognize as “true in my room,” not opaque or distant data. A teacher-driven system centered on standards, reflection, goals, and evidence builds trust in the process and puts the central focus on growth of teacher practice.
You’ll know it’s working when: Teachers can explain why the feedback applies to their students, point to evidence that supports the claim, and use the same language of practice across self-reflection, coaching, and evaluation conversations.
2. Feedback delivered in ways that doesn’t trigger threat.
How feedback is delivered often determines whether it becomes growth or shutdown. Teachers value feedback that is supportive, specific, and non-judgmental. This often starts with strengths, identifying one clear area to improve, offering practical guidance, and communicating confidence that improvement is absolutely possible (Guskey & Link, 2022).
Design implication: “Non-threatening” isn’t about being soft; it’s about creating conditions where professionals take instructional risks. A growth system must structurally support a coaching stance: teacher agency, strengths-based entry points, and feedback that ends with a clear next step rather than a vague verdict.
You’ll know it’s working when: Teachers seek input rather than avoid it, conferences consistently produce one or two concrete next moves, and the tone of feedback reinforces efficacy (“you can get better at this”) rather than compliance (“you must fix this”).
3. Actionable, timely feedback.
Teachers want to see evidence of improvement quickly, often within weeks, because no one wants to keep investing in a strategy that may not work for their students (Guskey & Link, 2022). Timely feedback isn’t “nice to have.” It’s the difference between sustained growth and abandoned initiatives.
Design implication: If the system only produces feedback at the end of the year or only once a year, it’s structurally misaligned to how improvement actually happens. A growth system must make short-cycle evidence normal and easy: quick checks, frequent touchpoints, and rapid feedback loops that help teachers adjust while learning is still unfolding (Guskey & Link, 2022).
You’ll know it’s working when: Teachers can name what they adjusted in the last two to four weeks, what student evidence prompted the change, and what they’ll try next based on the most recent patterns, not last quarter’s results.
4. Multiple measures because no single measure tells the full story.
The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project’s validation work supports using multiple measures (achievement gains, observations, student surveys) because each captures a different slice of teaching and each carries error (Kane et al., 2013). MET also cautions that even if a measure is accurate on average, it can still be wrong for an individual teacher, especially when used for high-stakes decisions (Kane et al., 2013).
Design implication: Triangulation is key. A growth system should be designed so multiple sources of evidence can be brought together coherently, without multiplying workload, so conclusions are supported by so conclusions are based on patterns across sources, and the system leaves room to say “we’re not sure yet” when the evidence doesn’t agree.
You’ll know it’s working when: Feedback conversations reference at least two evidence sources, decisions are rarely made from a single data point, and the system makes it easy to revisit conclusions when new evidence appears.
5. Feedback should connect to student impact, not generic teacher behaviors.
Teachers don’t reject observation feedback. They reject feedback that stays at the level of vague behaviors (“more engagement,” “ask higher-order questions”) without anchoring in evidence of what students are learning, doing, misunderstanding, or experiencing. The feedback teachers value most tends to be highly specific: patterns in formative assessment, student work misconceptions, participation trends, belonging cues. They want information that tells them what to do next (Guskey & Link, 2022).
Design implication: The feedback conversation needs to be centered on evidence of what teachers are doing and how students are learning. Teachers want to know: What are next potential moves? How might I improve here or have a great impact on student learning? Specific, actionable feedback based on evidence.
You’ll know it’s working when: Conversations center on the evidence provided by teachers about their goals, the impact they are having in the classroom, and thinking about what they might do next.
6. Improving teaching quality pays off beyond test scores.
One of the strongest rationales for investing in teacher growth is that teacher quality shapes long-term outcomes. Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff link higher teacher value-added to adult earnings, college attendance and quality, reduced teen births, improved neighborhood quality, and increased retirement savings participation (Chetty et al., 2014). Their estimate is striking; a one standard deviation increase in teacher value-added in a single grade is associated with about 1.3% higher earnings at age 28 (Chetty et al., 2014).
Design implication: If the long game matters, the system cannot be a one-off. A growth system should be built to support sustained, cumulative development that helps teachers set goals, gather evidence over time, learn from feedback, and carry that learning forward across cycles.
You’ll know it’s working when: Teachers can show a coherent line of growth over time (not a single event), articulate what changed in practice and why, and point to evidence that instructional improvement translated into better student learning and experience.
What’s Often Missing But Teachers Usually Need: Non-Negotiable Design Requirements
The research points to several requirements that too often go unstated, meaning schools build “systems” that look complete but don’t earn teacher buy-in.
References
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.
Guskey, T. R., & Link, L. J. (2022). What teachers really want when it comes to feedback. Educational Leadership, 79(7), 42–48.
Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment (Research Paper). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Stacy Stephens is the Director of The International Educator (TIE) and has more than 25 years in international education as both a teacher and a school leader. In her work with TIE, she focuses on strengthening recruitment practices and helping educators show their impact through Evidence-Based Portfolios aligned to the Standards of Practice for International Schools. She also leads the development of TIE’s Growth and Appraisal Tool, which supports schools in building clearer, more supportive systems for feedback, development, and professional growth, always with a focus on better outcomes for students and healthier school cultures.
