Nowadays the educational systems depend critically, among other factors, on attract and educate good teaching staff and to retain teachers of good performance to reach a high quality (EFEE-ETUCE; UNESCO; Isoré). Close to the professional logic based on expertise and auto regulation (Freidson), a long list of countries have been implemented schemes of bureaucratic rationalization, based on centralized systems of administration, evaluation and payment for results associated with the New public management. (Leicht and Fennell; Alexander; Evetts; Hargreaves and Fullan; Middlehurst and Kennie). Consistently, the professional performance is considered to be an individual result that can be modified by means of incentives, form of comprehension of the professional work that has been understood as a professional individual entrepeneurship (Evetts; Middlehurst and Kennie; Sisto and Fardella).

This individual approach has being criticized by those authors in professional theory who sustains that performance depends rather on different factors, among which we can find the school objective, the school´s  work policies and the social dynamic between co-working teachers (UNESCO; Valencia and Manzi; Santiago, Benavides, Danielson, Goe & Nusche; Jornet, Gonzalez-Such & Sanchez-Delgado). In this sense, and from a methodological perspective valid around the world, measuring teaching performance only on an individualistic postulation assumes the implicit risk of threatening the validity of the measurements, contributing results slanted so they ignore explanatory relevant factors of this performance (UNESCO; OCDE; Yuan).

In line with this critic, different authors have indicated that the analysis of good professional performance has to consider the effect of peer social processes that explain some positive results, that has being described as peer effect or spillover effect (Eisenberg; Goldhaber and Anthony; Jackson and Bruegmann; Valencia and Manzi). For example, some evidence shows that a major presence of teachers with quality certifications in a school, as well as a major number of candidates to the accreditation increases the probability of other teachers of obtaining it (Santelices et al.; Valencia; Goldhaber & Anthony). In the same way, the incorporation of teachers with high degree of qualification has a positive impact on their peers´ teaching practice, especially in beginning teachers (Jackson & Bruegmann; Heck; McLean; Yuan).

In order to explain the spillover effect, it has been indicated the role of diffusion of acquired cultural capital to explain how low performance professionals workers increase they cultural background when they works with high qualifications workers (Battu, Belfield and Sloan). The cooperation and mutual learning between co-working teachers permits a sharing of the kind of knowledge that improves teaching performance. Within this perspective the role of social processes to share knowledge and social support plays a key role (Goldhaber & Anthony; Mycue). Another explanations is the motivation, personnel or hint, to leveling the own conduct to achieve the performance of some exemplary teachers in the regular performance or in evaluations standardized (Jackson & Bruegmann; Battu, Belfield & Sloan). Finally, it has been considered the observation of the work of others as a relevant process, as long as it is accompanied of reflection and a feedback about the observed performance (Barth).

The investigations before presented, all of them of quantitative character, have limitations at the moment of raising what processes and what conditions are associated with the peer or spillover effect that is related to good professional performance of the teachers. Of there that emerges as question of investigation: what social processes and conditions have been lived by teachers of good performance on the occasion of the educational evaluation, and what meaning and distinctive elements do they emerge of them?

Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Barth, R. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 8-13. Battu, H., & Belfield, C. & Sloane, P. (2003). Human capital spillovers within the workplace: Evidence for Great Britain. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(5), 575-594. Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406-422. EFEE/ETUCE (2015). ESSDE Outcome Joint Declaration EFEE/ETUCE on “The promotion of self-evaluation of schools and teachers”. Working paper Freidson, E. (1994). Pofessionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Goldhaber, D. & Anthony, E. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? CRPE Working Paper, 6, 1-39. Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. transforming teaching in every school. Estados Unidos: Routledge. Heck, R. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432. doi:10.1177/0013161X07306452 Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223283631428 Jackson, K. & Bruegmann, E. (2009). AssociationTeaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal, 1(4), 85-108. doi:10.1257/app. 1.4.85 Leicht, K. & Fennell, M. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology., 23, 215-231. Middlehurst, R. & Kennie, T. (1997). Leading professionals: Towards new concepts of professionalism. In J. Broadvent, & Dietrich, M. & Robert, J. (Eds.), The end of the professions? (1a ed., ). Estados Unidos: Routledge. Santelices, V., Valencia, E., & Taut, S. & Manzi, J. (2010). The importance of contextual and personal variables in explaining teacher performance in a standards-base measure. Santiago de Chile. 1-30. Santiago, P., Benavides, F., Danielson, C., & Goe, L. & Nusche, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in chile. . (OECD: Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education). UNESCO. (2007). Educación de calidad para todos: Un asunto de derechos humanos. (Documento de Discusión). Buenos Aires: UNESCO. Valencia, E. & Manzi, J. (2011). Desempeño docente: Relaciones con antecedentes de los profesores y su contexto. In J. Manzi, R. González & Y. Sun (Eds.), La evaluación docente en chile. (1a ed., pp. 179-193). Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Ciencias Sociales-MIDE UC. Yuan, K. (2015). A value-added study of teacher spillover effects across four core subjects in middle schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(38), 1-24.