Music Teacher Resistance in the Face of Performativity

• In Event: Marriott Roundtable Session 19
  In Roundtable Session: Music Teacher Evaluation: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?

Abstract

Teacher evaluation systems changed dramatically in the wake of Race to the Top and the United States Department of Education’s NCLB waiver program (Lavigne & Good, 2013; Mead, Rotherham, & Brown, 2012). Scholars have discussed many of these changes at length, including the push for differentiation of teacher effectiveness (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Weisberg et al., 2009), the advent of value-added models (VAMs), and the confusion about how to adequately evaluate the roughly 70% of teachers working in the non-tested subjects and grades (Marion et al., 2012; Prince et al., 2009). While music teachers were able to escape the direct focus of NCLB era accountability provisions, these later efforts have squarely impacted music teacher practice (Shaw, 2016).
In this theoretical paper, however, I argue that lurking beneath the surface of conversations surrounding the new era of teacher performance evaluation is a potent paradigm of performativity that has been rarely discussed. Originally identified by Lyotard (1979), performativity describes an approach to education that reorients schooling toward the competitive needs of the economy. In this “production” model, teachers are effective if they produce specified results—usually standardized test scores or equivalent outputs (Ball, 2003). Thus, performativity does not refer directly to accountability measures such as VAM-based teacher evaluation or rubric-based observation of practice. Rather, it is the broader paradigm that makes such decisions popular and alluring.
Performativity also tends toward “the reduction of all judgment to the criterion of efficiency of input-output relations” (Bartos, 1990), and shares the same underlying narrative as what has been termed New Public Management (NPM). Authors discussing NPM discuss it as the application of market theory and private sector management principles to the public sector, which includes public education (Tolofari, 2005). In both performativity and NPM, business sector principles are prioritized. This includes cost-cutting and efficiency, incentivizing achievement on performance targets, and close monitoring of performance. In education, performativity predicts that systems—such as schools—will increasingly emphasize measuring outputs (i.e., test scores) but fail to acknowledge or value “bigger picture” goals (i.e., engagement in learning, transferable thinking skills) (Mintrop & Sunderman, 2013).
In the present philosophical inquiry, I seek to answer the following questions: (a) What characterizes the current performative atmosphere in education? (b) How can performativity help the field of music education understand the dilemmas music teachers face? I use philosophical inquiry and a combination of real and imagined vignettes to interrogate performativity and NPM ideals as they relate to music teacher evaluation.
I find that performativity can serve as a lens to understand specific waves of accountability. In addition, I analyze the seduction and dangers of performativity. Finally, I argue that performativity presents music teachers have limited options. They may accept the logic of the accountability exercise, resist overtly, or--most likely--resist covertly through fabrication (Ball, 2003; Mintrop & Sunderman, 2013). This paper holds possible significance for music educators. Without understanding the performativity movement, it is impossible to fully understand the myriad changes to teacher accountability systems in schools.

Author

• Ryan Shaw, Capital University