How Teacher Accountability and Evaluation Contribute to the Unattractiveness of the Teaching Profession

• In Event: Examining the Current State of the Teaching Profession: A Case Study of South Carolina

Abstract

This paper presentation addresses how accountability and its associated push to measure educator “effectiveness” has contributed to the decline of the professional reputation of teachers and the teacher shortage in South Carolina. The presentation will explore how government policy initiatives intended to provide quality instruction in schools via educator accountability has created a climate of unrest in the field and the broader community. The authors will introduce this topic by exploring the chronological journey of how the federal and state government’s attempts to connect teachers to student outcomes have rendered the teaching profession less attractive over time. Then, the presentation will demonstrate how teacher effectiveness has been measured and used. Finally, the presentation will conclude with a discussion of the limitations of the measurements (e.g., factors that add ambiguity in the quantification of student outcomes), with emphasis placed on their connection with working conditions and student growth.

With this presentation, the presenters intend to answer the following questions: (1) What policy structure connects educator effectiveness and pay in South Carolina; and (2) What conditions interfere with the effectiveness of educators in South Carolina?

The idea of compensation for performance is sophisticated. Researchers have found that it can create uneasiness among employees (i.e. teachers) but it can also make others feel valued. It entertains the effectiveness of the teacher based on administrative valuation and the performance of students on standardized assessments at a given time.

The idea of connecting outcomes to teacher pay is not new. South Carolina’s Education Improvement Act of 1984 advocates for evaluating teaching performance based on student learning. This legislation set the state tone of accountability in the profession. Later, the South Carolina Education Accountability Act of 1998 outlined teaching incentives emphasizing accountability systems and linking pay for performance. Currently, the South Carolina Teacher Incentive Fund (SC TIF) provides incentives to teachers and principals who improve achievement, or work in hard-to-staff subjects, poor, minority, or disadvantaged schools.

Nationally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) also known as the Race to the Top, promoted performance-pay in education by providing funding to states that measure student growth and secure effective teachers. Although South Carolina did not choose to become a recipient, federal legislation like Race to the Top (and later ESSA) conceptually endorsed policies of holding teachers accountable for student outcomes.

Despite these and other efforts, teachers voice that the dimension of external forces lends subjectivity to performance. They argue that factors such as teacher supplies, support staff, and administrative decisions on how to allocate available resources impact effectiveness and create risk for inequitable compensation. Organizations have weighed in on whether merit pay is worth pursuing on a grand scale within education. Many fear a centralized form of merit pay, especially in a state that does not have a powerful teachers union. Regardless, this tone of accountability adds to the condition of the teaching profession in South Carolina and affects teacher pay. These implications will form the basis for the discussion stemming from this presentation.

Author

• Sharda Jackson Smith, University of South Carolina - Upstate
  Presenting Author