The field of education has been marked by change initiatives, especially since 2002 and the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Teacher evaluation is a major area of concern in many of these initiatives and the implementation of the Race to the Top in 2009 has place even greater emphasis on Teacher Evaluation. Thirty-seven states made significant changes to teacher evaluation policies between 2009 and 2013. Many state and local education agencies have adopted performance-based teacher evaluation instruments that claim to be based on the constructivist theory of teaching and learning. The obvious question in regard to the adoption and implementation of a constructivist-based evaluation is whether or not the teachers being evaluated share that constructivist paradigm. A person's paradigm often dictates his/her behavior and may obstruct a person's ability to "see" a situation that conflicts with their paradigm. If teachers being evaluated with a constructivist based system do not share the constructivist view of teaching and learning, perhaps education agencies need to address the possible chasm between the constructivist paradigm and the actual teaching and learning paradigm of the teachers. The purpose of this study was to compare the teaching and learning paradigm of a set of teachers with the constructivist paradigm that provides the foundation for the teacher evaluation instrument with which they will be evaluated in the 2014-2015 school year. The qualitative study was conducted utilizing the Content Analysis process to extract the answer to the research question from the open-ended responses of the teachers to questions concerning the characteristics of the constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning. The teacher responses revealed that the teachers, on average, do not possess a constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning. Therefore, the question remains as to an education agency's response to the apparent gap between the paradigm of the teachers and the theory behind the evaluation instrument.