This qualitative case study explored the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of a newly implemented teacher evaluation policy in a high-stakes testing state, and how this policy impacted their motivation. Five science teachers and their immediate supervisors were interviewed, and their perceptions were analyzed through motivational theories of incentivizing career behaviors. Findings suggest the overarching goal of improving teacher practice through accountability was facilitated by intrinsic motivation and challenged by weaknesses in policy design. These tensions could be mediated by localized control that improves stakeholder agency, peer learning communities, and the adoption of more reliable evaluation metrics. Implications for teacher buy-in of evaluation policy are discussed.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 516 (February19, 2009).
2.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system. Educational Researcher, 37, 65-75.
3.
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. F.LinnR. L.. . . ShepardL. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (vol. 278). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
4.
BaruschA.GringeriC.GeorgeM. (2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35(1), 11-19.
5.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2011). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Bellevue, WA: Author.
6.
ClipaO. (2015). Roles and strategies of teacher evaluation: Teachers’ perceptions. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 916-923.
7.
CoburnC. E.HillH. C.SpillaneJ. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45, 243-251.
8.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9.
ConleyS.GlasmanN. S. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation. Educational Policy, 22, 63-85.
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
12.
CuevasR.NtoumanisN.Fernández-BustosJ. G.BartholomewK. (2018). Does teacher evaluation based on student performance predict motivation, well-being, and ill-being?Journal of School Psychology, 68, 154-162.
13.
DanielsonC. (2008). The handbook for enhancing professional practice: Using the framework for teaching in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14.
Darling-HammondL.Amrein-BeardsleyA.HaertelE.RothsteinJ. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation: Popular modes of evaluating teachers are fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but the field has identified better approaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
15.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775-799.
16.
de JesusS. N.LensW. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology, 54, 119-134.
17.
DerringtonM. L.CampbellJ. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 305-326.
18.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
19.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
20.
FettermanD. M.WandersmanA. (Eds.). (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
FinniganK. S.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-629.
22.
FirestoneW. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43, 100-107.
23.
FirestoneW. A.NordinT. L.ShcherbakovA.BlitzC. L.KirovaD. (2014). New Jersey’s Pilot Teacher Evaluation Program: Year 2 final. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Effective School Practices.
24.
FormanK.MarksonC. (2015). Is “effective” the new “ineffective”? A crisis with the New York state teacher evaluation system. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 14(2), 5-11.
25.
FullanM. G. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In AnsonR. J. (Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
26.
FullanM. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
GiganteN. A.FirestoneW. A. (2008). Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 302-331.
28.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
29.
GoeL.BellC.LittleO. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
30.
GonzálezR. A.FirestoneW. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 383-406.
31.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.
32.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.O’BrienD. M.RivkinS. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality (No. w11154). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
33.
HarrisD. N. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 319-350.
34.
HarrisD. N.HerringtonC. D. (2015). The use of teacher value-added measures in schools: New evidence, unanswered questions, and future prospects. Educational Researcher, 44, 71-76.
35.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 73-112.
36.
HillH.GrossmanP. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 371-384.
37.
HillH.KapitulaL.UmlandK. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 794-831.
38.
HollowayI. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
39.
HopkinsP. (2016). Teacher voice: How teachers perceive evaluations and how leaders can use this knowledge to help teachers grow professionally. NASSP Bulletin, 100(1), 5-25.
40.
JenningsJ. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers’ use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-23.
KimballS. M.MilanowskiA. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 34-70.
43.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46, 234-249.
44.
LeithwoodK.SteinbachR.JantziD. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 94-119.
45.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Long Island Index. (2009). Long Island index report. Garden City, NY: Rauch Foundation.
47.
LouisK. S.FebeyK.SchroederR. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
48.
MalenB. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17, 195-216.
49.
MartínezJ. F.SchweigJ.GoldschmidtP. (2016). Approaches for combining multiple measures of teacher performance: Reliability, validity, and implications for evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 738-756.
50.
MarzanoR. J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-19.
51.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
52.
MurphyJ.HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes?Educational Researcher, 42, 349-354.
53.
New York State Education Department. (2013). Approved APPR plans. Albany: Author.
54.
New York State Education Department. (2015a). General education and diploma requirements. Albany: Author.
55.
New York State Education Department. (2015b). Guidance on New York State’s annual professional performance review for teachers and principals to implement educational law 3012-c and the commissioners regulations. Albany: Author.
56.
New York State Legislature. (2010). Article 61. Teachers and supervisory and administrative staff (Section 3012-c Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principles). Retrieved from http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi
57.
New York State United Teachers. (2011). The NYSUT teacher practice rubric. Latham: Author.
PallasA. M. (2012). The fuzzy scarlet letter. Educational Leadership, 70, 54-57.
60.
PapayJ. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tolls of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 123-141.
61.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
62.
PattonM. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5Pt. 2), 1189-1208.
63.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In ValleR. S.HallingS. (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
64.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
65.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1586.
66.
SadlerD. R. (1985). Evaluation, policy analysis, and multiple case studies: Aspects of focus and sampling. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 143-149.
67.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
68.
SippleJ. W.KillenK.MonkD. H. (2003). Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 143-168.
69.
SmetanaL. K.WennerJ.SettlageJ.McCoachD. B. (2016). Clarifying and capturing “trust” in relation to science education: Dimensions of trustworthiness within schools and associations with equitable student achievement. Science Education, 100, 78-95.
70.
SpringerM. G.BallouD.PengA. (2008). Impact of the teacher advancement program on student test score gains: An independent appraisal. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.
71.
SteinbergM. P.GarrettR. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 293-317.
72.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
73.
StrongM.GarganiJ.HacifazliogluO. (2011). Do we know a successful teacher when we see one? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 367-382.
74.
StrongeJ. H.WardT. J.TuckerP. D.HindmanJ. L. (2007). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184.
75.
TuytensM.DevosG. (2009). Teachers’ perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A validity study of the Policy Characteristics Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 924-930.
76.
TylerJ. H. (2011). Designing high quality evaluation systems for high school teachers: Challenges and potential solutions. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
WeissJ. A. (2012). Data for improvement, data for accountability. Teachers College Record, 114, 110307.
82.
XuX.GrantL. W.WardT. J. (2016). Validation of a statewide teacher evaluation system: Relationship between scores from evaluation and student academic progress. NASSP Bulletin, 100, 203-222.
83.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
