“It should be helping me improve, not telling me I'm a bad teacher”: The influence of accountability-focused evaluations on teachers' professional identities (original) (raw)
Related papers
Teacher evaluation—accountability and improving teaching practices
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 2016
Since the turn of the century, teacher evaluation 1 has been put forward as an important strategy to serve both accountability and school improvement purposes, particularly in countries such as England and the USA, as well as elsewhere. Out of 28 countries surveyed in the OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes (2013), 22 reported having national-or state-level policy frameworks for teacher evaluation. In the six remaining countries, practices to provide feedback on teachers' work are designed and implemented locally. 1 Some historical perspectives The evaluation of teachers' work has a long history. Many countries have a long tradition of teachers being assessed by superiors-school leaders/administrators (i.e. head teachers/ principals) or regional supervisors/superintendents (or school board members in a few countries). The approaches used depended on the mandate and varied according to the professional expertise of the evaluators. In the 1980s and 1990s, school improvement approaches promoted strategies that focused on teachers' self-evaluation or evaluation by peers instead of by superiors. This kind of assessment was undertaken by the professionals themselves and tailored to specific needs for professional development and improvement of individual instructional practices. Strategies such as action research (Altrichter et al.
2017
Title of Dissertation: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER EVALUATION USING THE TEACHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEACHER QUALITY, PROFESSIONAL GROWTH, AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME Alexander C. Jaffurs, Doctor of Education, 2017 Dissertation Directed by: Patricia M. Richardson, Ph.D Department of Education The primary purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve teaching practice, which results in increased student achievement. In practice, however, evaluation systems have been generally used as sorting mechanisms for identifying the lowest performing teachers for selective termination. The school system in this study, like others, aspires to have all of its teachers consistently performing at a highly effective level. The problem of practice faced by the school system is the inability of a large number of teachers rated “effective” to summarily improve their practice over time and move to the “highly effective” rating. In essence, how does a ...
Evaluative relationships: teacher accountability and professional culture
Journal of Education Policy, 2019
Research on recently adopted methods for teacher evaluation are largely focused on issues of validity and pay less attention to the consequences of implementation for the everyday practices of teaching and learning in schools. This paper draws on an ethnographic case-study to argue that the joint tasks demanded by neoliberal teacher evaluation policies structure interactions among teachers and between teachers and administrators in ways that erode professional culture. Implications for policymakers, school leaders, and teachers are considered.
Teacher Evaluation: The Charge and the Challenges
The evaluation of teachers is at the forefront of national discussion, with the divide on the topic growing increasingly deeper. Teachers are under attack, in a war waged from the top down, complete with private entities, standardization, and a limited view of what it means to be "good" or "effective." In both teacher preparation programs and in our public schools, teachers entering the profession and practicing in classrooms face evaluation measures that are biased, unreliable, and reliant upon quantitative outcomes. Teacher Evaluation: The Charge and the Challenges aims to "talk back" to the national rhetoric about teacher evaluation and accountability measures, with a call for all educators, policy makers, activists, scholars, and reformers to engage in critical dialogue and democratic practices
education policy analysis archives
In this written commentary for the special issue of Education Policy Analysis Archives focused on “Redesigning Assessment and Accountability,” we call for teacher preparation to embrace a multiple measures philosophy by providing teacher candidates with rich opportunities to engage with data from a variety of sources, beyond teacher test scores and principal evaluations. We apply and extend Bae’s (2018) argument to teacher preparation policies, urging teacher educators to develop programs that promote continuous improvement. We argue that teacher education can and should prepare candidates to engage in multiple measure systems, critically evaluate data and sense make to construct meaning, reflect on and improve their practice to meet the needs of all students, and ultimately advocate for next-generation accountability systems that authentically foreground and prioritize continuous improvement.
Who Evaluates Teacher Performance? Mismatched Paradigms, the Status Quo, the Missed Opportunities
1993
This paper presents findings of a study that examined teachers' and parents' attitudes toward teacher evaluation, particularly in regard to the usefulness of instruction-based instruments to measure holistic, integrated classroom practices. A pilot teacher assessment instrument was developed and field-tested at seven schools in which holistic methods were practiced. Interviews were also conducted with 10 elementary school principals and 9 teachers who had established holistic, integrated practices. Findings indicate that although the principals endorsed holistic, integrated practices, they were reluctant to alter the status quo of using a direct instruction-based evaluation instrument. Teachers who were evaluated by.principals unfamiliar with holistic instruction expressed frustration and disappointment, viewing their principals' observations as missed opp.ortunities for both teachers and administrators. A conclusion is that the teacher-evaluation instrument is much less important than the processes of negotiation and collaboration between teachers and administrators. The teacher evaluation instrument should be collaboratively developed; negotiated by participants for agreement of form and content; controlled by participants for shared decision making in how the instrument is used; able to assess the complexities of holistic, integrated classrooms; learning-centered; revised as participants change and grow; and used to foster collegial interchanges. (LMI) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document.
Examining the Complexity of Assessment and Accountability in Teacher Education
Journal of Teacher Education, 2012
The theme of accountability currently permeates conversations about education at every level, including teacher education and professional development. In our Call for Manuscripts for this theme issue, we invited empirical or conceptual manuscripts addressing assessment and accountability in teacher education that would move the community forward in considering the topics both more precisely and with greater complexity. The range of suggested subtopics and questions within assessment and accountability in teacher education was broad to elicit a wide range of responses. In general, we asked, "Who is to be held accountable? For what? And by whom?" As we reviewed the many excellent submissions, one predominant response to these questions centered on value-added modeling (VAM) approaches to accountability. Although this is only one of several answers to the questions we asked, it is one that has important intended and unintended consequences for various stakeholders in teacher education, including beginning teachers, mentor teachers, administrators, teacher educators, higher education institutions, and policy makers.