Enhancing Teacher Education, Development, and Evaluation

Better integrating summative and formative goals in the design of next generation teacher evaluation systems

“…Furthermore, at the level of practice, principals have historically served as evaluators. There is growing evidence that teachers find meaning and satisfaction in evaluation processes that are more open to teacher input, as well as those that are conducted by teaching peers, instructional coaches, or other expert teachers as opposed to the principal (Ford et al, 2018;Lavigne & Good, 2019Smith & Kubacka, 2017). We believe there is an opportunity to better consider the role of veteran teachers, coaches, and mentors in the evaluation process, not only because they often possess the knowledge and experience needed to support fellow teacher improvement, but also because principals are already overworked (Lavigne & Good, 2015) and, as a result, might approach the evaluation process with more attention to efficiency than rich feedback (Lavigne & Good, 2020).…”

“…Accountability policy serves some of the needs of organizations for control and certainty, but typically fails to be mindful of the needs of individuals as learners. Neoliberal approaches to teacher evaluation are based on the foolhardy assumption that certainty in these educational processes or outcomes can be achieved, but this assumption is in direct contravention to what educational philosophers and researchers have known about education for decades-teaching and learning are inherently uncertain, messy endeavors (Cohen, 2011;Lavigne & Good, 2019McDonald, 1992).…”

“…Race to the Top (RttT) spurred states to rethink the ways in which they evaluate teacher performance. However, by many accounts, these efforts have largely failed to produce marked improvements in teaching and learning (Firestone & Donaldson, 2019;Hallinger et al, 2014;Lavigne & Good, 2019. While the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has provided some much-needed flexibility, changes in teacher evaluation systems have remained meager at best, though there has been a marked trend away from the accountability-driven rhetoric that typified RttT systems toward language which affirms the importance of providing teachers with meaningful feedback to improve their practice (Close, Amrein-Beardsley, & Collins, 2018).…”

Preservice teachers’ beliefs about high-stakes testing and their working environments

“…Race to the Top (RttT) was a follow-up federal grants program launched in 2009 that reflected a shift in the government's approach to educational accountability (Lavigne & Good, 2019;U.S. Department of Education, 2009).…”

“…As the first author has argued elsewhere (Nichols, 2016), teachers should be equipped to be able to advocate for their profession. Well trained teacher advocates are better positioned to identify and resist mandates that are counterproductive to evidenced-based educational practice (such as high-stakes testing and value-added teacher evaluation systems, e.g., Dianis, Jackson, & Noguera, 2015;Koretz, 2017;Lavigne & Good, 2019). As long as high-stakes testing remains a part of teacher evaluation and school accountability problems, it will remain critical that our teachers understand what is at stake.…”