ABSTRACT Education policymakers at the national level have initiated reforms in K-12 education for that past several years that have focused on teacher quality and teacher evaluation. More recently, reforms have included legislation that focuses on administrator quality as well. Included in far-reaching recent legislation in Arizona is a requirement that administrators be evaluated on a standards-based evaluation system that is linked to student outcomes. The end result is an annual summative measure of administrator effectiveness that impacts job retention. Because of this, Arizona administrators have become concerned about rapidly becoming proficient in the new evaluation systems. Administrators rarely have the explicit professional development opportunities they need to collaborate on a shared understanding of these new evaluation systems. This action research study focused on a group of eight administrators in a small urban district grappling with a new, complex, and high-stakes administrator evaluation that is a component of an all-encompassing Teacher Incentive Fund Grant. An existing professional learning time was engaged to assist administrators in lessening their concerns and increasing their understanding and use of the evaluation instrument. Activities were designed to engage the administrators in dynamic, contextualized learning. Participants interacted in a group to interpret the meaning of the evaluation instrument share practical knowledge and support each other's acquisition understanding. Data were gathered with mixed methods. Administrators were given pre-and post-surveys prior to and immediately after this six-week innovation. Formal and informal interviews were conduct throughout the innovation. Additionally, detailed records in the form of meeting records and a researcher journal were kept. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to validate findings. Results identified concerns and understanding of administrators as they attempted to come to a shared understanding of the new evaluation instrument. As a result of learning together, their concerns about the use of the instrument lessened. Other concerns however, remained or increased. Administrators found the process of the Administrator Learning Community valuable and felt their understanding and use of the instrument had increased. Intense concerns about the competing priorities and initiatives led to the administrators to consider a reevaluation of the competing initiatives. Implications from this study can be used to help other administrators and professional development facilitators grappling with common concerns.