In 2011, the State of Michigan, along with other states, passed legislation that mandated standardized test data be used on teacher evaluations starting in the 2013-2014 academic year. Subsequent legislation was passed that altered specific weights for the data on the evaluations and when schools would have to implement changes to the evaluations. In some states, value-added models are used to determine growth on the evaluations, and it was recommended those models be used in Michigan as well. The state elected to not use them and left it up to individual schools to figure out how to measure growth.In this study, I interviewed five mathematics teachers and four principals to ascertain what barriers existed as they attempted to implement the changes to teacher evaluations in Michigan. Specifically, I looked for evidence of the following barriers: disagreement, money, knowledge, other people, materials time, apathy, and stress. After analyzing my interview data, I found evidence of all of the barriers, with the bulk of the interview data coded as disagreement. Principals and teachers disagreed with how teachers were being evaluated. Both groups did not feel standardized test data should be used in a high-stakes matter. Principals felt the current system required too much of their time and that teachers focused too much on their scores. The teachers indicated they did not find the data from their evaluations to be useful to them. As a result, they did not use their evaluations to inform their practice. Instead of the current system, principals advocated for a simpler system where they could just have conversations with teachers about their practice instead of talking about a rubric. Teachers just asked that, regardless of what system is in place, that they be evaluated fairly and the data from their evaluations are meaningful to them.
Read
