Accountability, Growth, or Both? Practitioner Lived Experiences of a New Teacher Evaluation System in Texas

• In Event: Evidence, Expertise, and Accountability: Understanding the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System

Abstract

Purpose
Many states adopted new evaluation systems to hold teachers accountable for student learning (Amrein-Beardsley, 2008, 2014; Lavigne, 2014; Lavigne & Good, 2014). Texas is no exception, adopting the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS) in 2016-2017. T-TESS, posited as a growth model based on administrator-teacher partnerships, includes a professional practice rubric and student achievement measure. This study examined administrator and teacher lived experiences regarding: 1) the purpose of teacher evaluation ideally and in reality, and 2) the impacts of T-TESS on practitioners and students.

Perspectives
The theory of action herein is that participants’ perceptions of evaluation systems affect impact and sustainability (Hedge & Teachout, 2000; Milanowski & Heneman, 2001, O’Pry & Schumacher, 2012, see also Finster & Milanowski, 2018, p. 3). Further, a long-standing tension between accountability (evaluation) and supervision (support) within such systems is widely recognized. As described by Hazi (2019), evaluation systems task supervisors/evaluators with the duty “to ensure compliance with bureaucratic mandates, yet protect and forge relationships with teachers to work effectively with them” (p. 13). These tensions are apparent within T-TESS.

Methods
Embedded within a multiple case study (Yin, 2018), this single case involves a high school in a suburban, fast-growth school district in Texas, during the first year of T-TESS implementation. Data include a survey (n=64/87, 73.6%) and focus group (n=7) with teachers and interviews with administrators (n=3) about their experiences with T-TESS. We analyzed survey responses using descriptive statistics and calculated correlation coefficients between items, which prompted further analysis of the qualitative data. We analyzed qualitative data using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1995). Two themes are discussed: 1) the distrust of the state’s purposes for teacher evaluation, and 2) a focus on technical aspects of implementation related to accountability that left the potential for teacher-growth focused partnerships underdeveloped.
Results
Administrators and teachers widely cited the ideal purpose of teacher evaluation as professional growth. In reality, teachers believed that administrators at this school valued growth, and administrators emphasized this perspective. However, participants did not trust the state’s motives. Uncertainty about how student achievement would be used for high-stakes consequences (e.g., merit pay) shaped participants’ experiences and perceptions of sustainability.
Focus on technical implementation detracted from the potential for growth-focused partnerships. Participants noted that the model is complex, consisting of an elaborate rubric and observation and conferencing protocols. Despite training, administrators struggled to understand the rubric and implement the protocol for all teachers. Participants expressed concerns about inter-rater reliability and equitable implementation. T-TESS’s focus on partnerships between administrators and teachers was highly valued; however, partnerships were underdeveloped, in part due to the intensive demands of implementation driven by accountability.

Significance
The focus on accountability within T-TESS has overshadowed the potential for supervision through partnerships. In Texas and elsewhere, policymakers need to better comprehend the lived experiences of practitioners, namely how they conceptualize the purpose of evaluation and perceive its impact on their professional practice and student learning.

Authors

• Noelle A. Paufler, Clemson University

• Kelley Marie King, University of North Texas

• Ping Zhu, University of North Texas