Educational reform responds to local and national pressures to improve educational outcomes, and reform efforts cycle as similar pressures recur. Currently, reform efforts focus on teachers, even though confidence in a host of American social institutions is dropping. One of the most widespread reforms regarding teachers is the creation of state laws and regulations that require high-stakes evaluation, often using value-added models or related approaches to measuring growth in student learning.
Purpose
This article discusses the papers in this special issue of Teachers College Record, drawing implications for teacher evaluation practice and policy, along with possible changes in the demand for teacher education and the teacher labor market.
Conclusions
The articles in this special issue of Teachers College Record address the use of emerging high-stakes teacher evaluation regulations and draw implications for policy and practice. All papers address limitations in the reliability and validity of these systems and the impacts that such shortcoming might have on teachers and students. In addition, there could be major impacts on the teacher labor market with implications for the sustained effectiveness of America's schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational, & Psychological Testing (US). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
Amrein-BeardsleyA., CollinsC., PolaskyS. A., & SloatE. F. (2013). Value-added model (VAM) research for educational policy: Framing the issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(4). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1311
3.
Arizona State Board of Education Task Force on Teacher and Principal Evaluations. (2011). Arizona framework for measuring educator effectiveness. Phoenix: Arizona State Board of Education.
4.
AudS., HussarW., JohnsonF., KenaG., RothE., ManningE., … ZhangJ. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
5.
BerlinerD. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessments: A fatal flaw. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–31.
6.
BlandJ., ShererD., GuhaR., WoodworthK., ShieldsP., Tiffany-MoralesJ., & CampbellA. (2011). The status of the teaching profession 2011. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
7.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
8.
BybeeR. W. (1997, October). The Sputnik Era: Why is this educational reform different from all other reforms? In Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking the past, present, and future of educational reform. Symposium conducted at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
9.
CollinsA., & HalversonR. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
CollinsC. (2012). Houston, we have a problem: Studying the SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) from teachers’ perspectives in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ASU Libraries. (http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.16043)
11.
CollinsC., & Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2014). Putting growth and value-added models on the map: A national overview. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–32.
EricssonK. A., & CharnessN. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725.
14.
FerraoM. E., & GoldsteinH. (2009). Adjusting for measurement error in the value added model: Evidence from Portugal. Quality & Quantity, 43, 951–963.
15.
GardnerD. P. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: The National Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
GinsbergR., & KingstonN. (2014). Caught in a vise: The challenges facing teacher preparation in an era of accountability. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–48.
17.
GoodT. (2014). What do we know about how teachers influence student performance on standardized tests: And why do we know so little about other student outcomes?Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–41.
18.
HanushekE. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In GoldhaberD. & HannawayJ. (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165–180). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
19.
HardyI. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research and practice. New York: Routledge.
20.
HeiligJ. V., & JezS. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for Educational Research and Practice.
21.
HellerJ. I., DaehlerK. R., WongN., ShinoharaM., & MiratrixL. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 333–362.
22.
HenryG. T., FortnerC. K., & BastianK. C. (2012). The effects of experience and attrition for novice high-school science and mathematics teachers. Science, 335(6072), 1118–1121.
23.
HerlihyC., KargerE., PollardC., HillH. C., KraftM. A., WilliamsM., & HowardS. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–28.
24.
IngersollR., & MerrillL. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
25.
IngersollR., & PerdaD. (2012). How high is teacher turnover and is it a problem?Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
KleinJ. I., RiceC. & LevyJ. (2012). U. S. Educational Reform and National Security (Independent Task for Report No. 68). New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.
29.
KonstantopoulosS. (2014). Teacher effects, value-added models, and accountability. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–21.
30.
LavigneA. L., (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–29.
RaudenbushS. (2004). What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice?Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 121–129.
34.
RiceJ. M. (1913). Scientific management in education. New York: Hinds, Noble and Eldredge.
35.
RonfeldtM., LoebS., & WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36.
SahlbergP. (2011). Finnish lessons. New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
SupovitzJ. A., MayerD. P., & KahleJ. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331–356.
