This dissertation investigates teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes evaluations and examines the methods used to conduct this research. While the evaluation of teacher performance has been a long-standing practice in the United States, recent education reform policies have placed a much greater emphasis on teacher evaluation (Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016). These neoliberal policies largely focus on assessing performance to hold teachers accountable (Papay, 2012) and have resulted in many states adopting performance-based teacher evaluation systems with high-stakes attached to them (Goldstein, 2014; Lavigne, 2014). These reforms have significantly changed both how teachers are evaluated and the implications of their evaluations. The purpose of this dissertation is to better understand the professional and personal consequences of these high-stakes evaluation systems on teachers, as well as how this research might be conducted in humanizing ways. Thus, I examine the lived experiences of teachers from three elementary schools in different suburban districts in Michigan, as well as aspects of humanizing research (Paris, 2011: Paris & Winn, 2014) that I incorporated into my research methods. This three article dissertation highlights the perspectives of teachers and reveals potential reasons for the ineffectiveness of high-stakes evaluation to improve practice, as well as several harmful consequences that high-stakes evaluations can have on teachers. At the very least, this current evaluation system does not encourage teachers to work together to improve their practice. At its most consequential, it appears to be encouraging isolationism and creating adversarial relationships among some teachers. Thus, I argue, by implicitly and explicitly discouraging collaboration, the current evaluation system is decreasing teachers’ access to the social capital that could help them be more effective in their practice. Additionally, while doing little to enhance their practice, these high-stakes evaluations are negatively influencing teachers’ identities. This finding is particularly significant when one considers teachers’ identities have been linked to their commitment, well-being, sense of agency, and effectiveness (Day & Kington, 2008). Therefore, I argue, it is doubtful that the current evaluation system, which focuses on accountability, is producing the desired effect of improved teaching and may actually be counterproductive, negatively influencing both teachers’ practice and their identities. I contend that teachers’ voices should inform necessary changes to teacher evaluation to produce evaluation systems that actually improve their practice and enhance their identities as teachers. Furthermore, in describing and reflecting upon my efforts to make my research more humanizing for my participants, this dissertation offers methods and a rationale for utilizing aspects of humanizing research amidst neoliberal policies. Such methods can implicate and counter the deprofessionalizing and dehumanizing effects of neoliberal policies on teachers.
Read
