While researchers have shown great interest in understanding teacher evaluation, little is known about how teachers’ actions and interactions surrounding evaluation affect the dual goals of evaluation—accountability and development. Using data collected during a yearlong ethnographic study at three schools (combined with follow-up interviews four years later), this study employs frame analysis to describe and explain how teachers formed a group perspective about the new evaluation policy, how this perspective informed their actions and interactions, and the consequences that these actions and interactions had on teacher collegiality, teacher learning, and instructional improvement.
BeckerH. S. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
2.
BeckerH. S.GeerB.HughesE. C.StraussA. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–378.
4.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.
5.
DonaldsonM.MavrogordatoM. (2018). Principals and teacher evaluation: The cognitive, relational, and organizational dimensions of working with low-performing teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 56, 586–601.
6.
DonaldsonM. L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
7.
DonaldsonM. L.WoulfinS. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 531–556.
8.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
FirestoneW. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16–23.
10.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
11.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
12.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
13.
HalversonR.KelleyC.KimballS. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In MiskelC. (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration (Vol. 3, pp. 153–188). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
KimballS. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 241–268.
16.
KimballS. M.MilanowskiA. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 34–70.
17.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 711–753.
18.
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.StrunkK. O.LincoveJ. A.HuguetA. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 1–32.
19.
MeadG. H. (1938). The philosophy of the act. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
MintropR.OrdenesM.CoghlanE.PryorL.MaderoC. (2018). Teacher evaluation, pay for performance, and learning around instruction: Between dissonant incentives and resonant procedures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54, 3–46.
21.
MurphyJ.HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes?Educational Researcher, 42, 349–354.
22.
OgbuJ. U. (1981). School ethnography: A multilevel approach. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12, 3–29.
23.
OvandoM. N. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of a learner-centered teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 213–231.
24.
PapayJ. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 123–141.
25.
PetersonP. L.ComeauxM. A. (1990). Evaluating the systems: Teachers’ perspectives on teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 3–24.
26.
ReinhornS. K.JohnsonS. M.SimonN. S. (2017). Investing in development: Six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 383–406.
27.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
28.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
WoulfinS. L.DonaldsonM. L.GonzalesR. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 110–143.
