Teacher Evaluation Reform: A Convergence of Federal and Local Forces

Abstract

<jats:p> This article employs event history analysis to explore the factors that were associated with the rapid uptake of teacher evaluation reform. We investigate three hypotheses for this rapid adoption: (a) downward diffusion from the federal government through Race to the Top (RTTT), (b) upward diffusion from large school district policies, and (c) the influence of intermediary organizations. Although RTTT clearly played a role in state adoption, our analysis suggests that having a large district implement teacher evaluation reform is the most consistent predictor of state adoption. Intermediary organizations appeared to play a role in the process as well. </jats:p>

Learning From Standards Deviations: Three Dimensions for Building Education Policies That Last

“…As RttT was not a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the CCSS and RttT lacked a long-term legal foundation while simultaneously requiring a shift from the basic numeracy and literacy tests mandated under NCLB. To secure RttT funding, states still adopted the CCSS, new assessments, and teacher evaluation laws (Bleiberg & Harbatkin, 2018). As the funding evaporated, these federally driven laws became less popular (Cheng et al, 2018).…”

“…RttT encouraged states to create rewards and consequences around teacher evaluation systems, which four out of the five states in this study adopted (California being the exception). Across the country, states followed the lead of major urban areas in adopting rewards and consequences for student achievement measures (Bleiberg & Harbatkin, 2018). The unintended consequences of holding teachers accountable for student achievement are well documented and researched (e.g., Booher-Jennings, 2005; Coburn, Hill, & Spillane, 2016; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000; Supovitz, 2009).…”

Exploring Public Perceptions of Nonprofit Policy Advocacy

“…As nonprofit advocacy has expanded and evolved, many of the more influential and well-funded organizations have developed strategic, aggressive efforts to change policies both at the national level, but more recently, with a stronger focus on states and localities, especially in areas like education policy (Bleiberg and Harbatkin 2018;Gandara, Rippner, and Ness 2017;Goss and Berry 2018;Reckhow and Snyder 2014;Reckhow and Tompkins-Stange 2018). In many cases, these organizations acknowledge the importance of subnational policymaking and the unequal distribution of policy expertise and resources across states.…”

The essence of ESSA: More control at the district level?

“…These changes represent a retreat from Race to the Top, which incentivized states to implement policies to both hold teachers accountable for slow growth in student proficiency and reward them for impressive gains on state tests. Such policies quickly spread across states in the earlier half of this decade (Bleiberg & Harbatkin, 2018), but in response to public backlash, 24 states and the District of Columbia have changed some aspect of their teacher evaluation laws since 2016. Fifteen states still award merit pay based on test scores, but in most cases, districts now have greater discretion in this area.…”