Abstract
After two decades of focus on teacher evaluation, the next policy frontier for states to explore is instructional improvement. Language matters. It reflects an ideology that guides practice. The prevailing view, influenced by both behaviorism and workplace psychology, is that when principals evaluate teachers and deliver “actionable feedback,” teachers change their behavior. This research examines how instructional improvement is promoted in the language of current law and national reports in the U. S. The researcher then challenges simplistic, flawed notions about feedback and its delivery, and calls for administrators to understand how teachers learn.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Pajak (2011) is an exception. In this article, Ed uses the psychoanalytic concept of narcissism to argue its influence on educational reform. In so doing, he notes how policymakers and parents are preoccupied with the intellectual improvement of both children and teachers, and thus, that standardized test scores are the only legitimate indicator of the quality of both. Furthermore, he argues that perfectionism drives the delusion that improvement can occur for both, just by “raising the bar”:
The specious assertion that learning can be achieved simply and efficiently by ‘raising the bar’ and forcing students and teachers to demonstrate higher achievement without consideration of the challenges both students and teachers face serves mainly to prop up fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience among reform-minded scholars, policymakers and politicians. (p. 2026)
- 2.
The publications varied and were called a report, policy brief, guide, and book. The research questions were:
-
1.
In ESSA and selected national reports, what language is used to promote instructional improvement?
-
2.
What are the continuing messages conveyed about teacher quality and instructional improvement?
-
3.
Is there any differentiation in the messages for beginning and veteran teachers?
A content analysis was done in which passages were extracted and placed in a matrix, then interpreted with a critical eye to the conventional wisdom of behaviorism (Hattie 2012) and workplace psychology (e.g., Farr et al. 2012).
-
1.
- 3.
Feedback is a term originating in engineering and used to describe how a system can regulate itself. Feedback was an idea used by early behaviorists “when attempting to analyse alterations in behavioral rates and probabilities. They conceived feedback as stemming from reinforcers (positive feedback) or in avoidance of punishment (negative feedback)” (Hattie and Yates 2014, para 1). Feedback is considered a key process in behavioral change and is among the top 10 influences on student achievement.
- 4.
“Soft language” (2018) is a term invented by comedian George Carlin to mean using words to conceal what might be considered harsh or offensive.
- 5.
At this writing NCTQ issued a report identifying 6 “pioneer” district or state evaluation systems reporting success and reflecting “a genuine distribution of teacher talent” (Putnam, Ross and Walsh, 2018, p. 1).
- 6.
I’m also troubled by the thin line between help and manipulation. Those who advocate using soft language, when giving feedback, have a duty to warn the evaluator who could easily deceive the teacher, the recipient and object—not the actor in this relationship. Teachers report that “feedback feels like something done to them, rather than for them” (Myung and Martinez 2013, p. 6). But I will save this concern for another writing.
- 7.
When a rubric is used as the instrument, its detailed description provides an impression of credibility. For example, Danielson’s Framework has four domains, with 22 components and 76 smaller elements. Each element is rated as “Unsatisfactory,” “Basic,” “Proficient” or “Distinguished.” A rubric, defined in 104 pages, conveys an aura of authority about what effective teaching is supposed to be and is hard to criticize.
- 8.
See also the work of Yendol-Hoppey, Jacobs and Burns (2019) who are supervision scholars concerned about teacher learning.
- 9.
School quality was a focus of federal law prior to teacher equality. Effective Schools Research ala Ron Edmonds influenced the funding of Title I schools in the Elementary and Secondary School Act in 1988, the endorsement of six national goals in 1989 and testing, and the popular What Works pamphlet (Cuban 1998) that then was presented in a website, “a central, independent and trusted source of scientific evidence” (U.S. Department of Education 2018, “Question 3”). This influence shifted into the accountability movement and subsequent No Child Left Behind Act.
- 10.
This also affects the funding of professional development. State laws have been changed to use student test scores to evaluate the effectiveness of professional development (Hazi and Arredondo Rucinski 2014).
References
Archer, J., Cantrell, S., Holtzman, S., Joe, W., Tocci, C., & Wood, J. (2016). Better feedback for better teaching: A practical guide to improving classroom observations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education and teaching. American Journal of Education, 92(4), 421–439.
Camera, L. (2017, October 19). Gates Foundation to shift education focus. U.S. News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-10-19/gates-foundation-pledges-17-billion-to-k-12-education-will-focus-on-building-school-networks
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2016). Principles for teacher support and evaluation systems. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Principles_for_Teacher_Support_and_Evaluation_Systems.html
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2016, April 18). Charlotte Danielson on rethinking teacher evaluation. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/charlotte-danielson-on-rethinking-teacher-evaluation.html
Deming, J. E. (2018, January 19). Continuous improvement. Retrieved from https://totalqualitymanagement.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/deming-cycle-the-wheel-of-continuous-improvement/
Donaldson, M. L. (2009). So long, Lake Wobegon? Using teacher evaluation to raise teacher quality. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/teacher_evaluation.pdf
Ellett, C. (1987). Emerging teacher performance assessment practices: Implications for the instructional supervision role of school principals. In W. Greenfield’s (Ed.), Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies (pp. 302–327). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2017). Retrieved from https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%20Act%20Of%201965.pdf
Farr, J., Baytalskaya, N., & Johnson, J. (2012). Not everyone is above average: Providing feedback in formal job performance evaluations. In R. Sutton, M. Hornsey, & K. Douglas (Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 201–215). New York: Peter Lang.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (Ed.). (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Garman, N. B., & Hazi, H. M. (1988). Teachers ask: Is there life after Madeline Hunter? The Phi Delta Kappan, 69(9), 669–672.
Hattie, J. (2012). Feedback in schools. In R. Sutton, M. Hornsey, & K. Douglas (Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 265–277). New York: Peter Lang.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Using feedback to promote learning. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. A publication of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
Hazi, H. M. (1989). Measurement versus supervisory judgment: The case of Sweeney v. Turlington. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(3), 211–229.
Hazi, H. M. (2010). The statewide teacher evaluation instrument: Icon or fetish of teacher quality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA SIG, Instructional Supervision, Denver, Co.
Hazi, H. M. (2014). The marketing of teacher evaluation: The seductive claims of instruments. The WERA Educational Journal, 6(1), 2–9.
Hazi, H. M. (2015). Teacher evaluation in statute, regulation and litigation: A view of the mid-Atlantic region with a focus on Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 35(1), 6–17.
Hazi, H. M. (2015–2016). Research on teacher evaluation: A review of statute, regulation and litigation in the region. The Rural Educator, 37(1), 39–45.
Hazi, H. M. (2017). The commodification of instructional improvement in an age of high-stakes accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA SIG, Instructional Supervision, San Antonio.
Hazi, H. M. (2019). Coming to understand the wicked problem of teacher evaluation. In S. J. Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), Handbook of educational supervision. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2014). Policy meets practice: Districts feel the impact of state regulations. Journal of Staff Development, 35(6), 44–47.
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, M. (2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 225–249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.
Lavigne, A., & Good, T. (2014). Teacher and student evaluation: Moving beyond the failure of school reform. New York: Routledge.
Leahy, C. (2012). Teacher evaluation training: Ensuring quality classroom observers. Denver: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/01/14/10114.pdf
McConachie, S., & Petrosky, A. (2010). Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Myung, J., & Martinez, K. (2013, July). Strategies for enhancing the impact of post-observation feedback for teachers. Stanford: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BRIEF_Feedback-for-Teachers.pdf
Pajak, E. (2011). Cultural narcissism and education reform. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 2018–2046.
Pianta, B., & Hofkens, T. (2018, November 21). Researching ‘what works’ in education isn’t working. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2018/11/researching_what_works_in_education_isnt_working.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3&M=58679846&U=15565&UUID=5db99379423bd8f2b72457b68b37431b
Putnam, H., Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2018). Making a difference: Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/Making-a-Difference
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122–183). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sawchuk, S. (2016, March 1). State chiefs pledge to maintain teacher evaluation post NCLB. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2016/03/chiefs_pledge_to_maintain_teacher_evaluation.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-57,-issue-1/herarticle/foundations-of-the-new-reform_461
“Soft language.” (2018). Urban dictionary. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soft%20language
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2017a, July). SREB feedback on teaching: A fresh look. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/feedback_on_teaching.pdf
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2017b, September). Evaluator training: Improving a key building block of better instruction, a guide for states. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/Evaluator_Training
The Gates Foundation. (2018). Findings help inform design and implementation of high-quality feedback and evaluation systems, a press release. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from https://www.gatesfoundation.org/media-center/press-releases/2013/01/measures-of-effective-teaching-project-releases-final-research-report
The National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ). (2018, January 23). Our approach. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/about/
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2012, February). ESEA flexibility review guidance. Retrieved June 30, 2015, from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/review-guidance.doc
U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February 28). Questions and answers on No Child Left Behind: Doing what works, archived information. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/doing.html
Walsh, K., Joseph, N., Lakis, K., & Lubell, S. (2017, January). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/Final_Evaluation_Paper
Will, M. (2018, October). These six teacher-evaluation systems have gotten results, analysis says. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2018/10/teacher_evaluation_systems_benefits.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2&M=58638427&U=15565&UUID=5db99379423bd8f2b72457b68
Yendol-Hoppey, D., Jacobs, J., & Burns, R. (2019). Improving teacher practice-based knowledge: What teachers need to know and how they come to know it. In S. J. Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), Handbook of supervision. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hazi, H.M. (2019). The Language of Instructional Improvement in the U.S.: A View from Current Law and Policy Reports. In: Derrington, M.L., Brandon, J. (eds) Differentiated Teacher Evaluation and Professional Learning. Palgrave Studies on Leadership and Learning in Teacher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16454-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16454-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16453-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16454-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)