State-mandated assisting and assessing teachers: Levels of state control

Abstract

Observers cite growing state control over the criteria and process utilized for assisting and assessing teachers in local school districts. This control is exerted through legislation, financial assistance for program implementation, and regulations. A number of writers lament that such state-mandated assisting and assessing of teaching has created teacher-proof teaching and supervisor-proof supervision (Hazi, 1989;Holdzkom, 1987;Wise, 1988). These laments are often focused on practices that reflect adherence to a rigid model of supervision with primary emphasis on assessment. Tracy and MacNaughton (1993) suggest that although state mandates pose certain threats, they also offer opportunities. For example, when mandating a specific assessment model, states often first engage a wide range of scholars and practitioners in dialogue and research on evaluation. In addition, state mandates sometimes provide support to teachers who, prior to their advent, gained little assistance from their local districts.However, these perceived threats and opportunities posed by state mandates are based more on anecdotal reports than on a systematic analysis of state practices. In their study of mandated teacher evaluation in 12 states, French, Holdzkom, and Kuligowski (1990) cite the need to assemble information about current state supervisory practice so that states can learn from the successes and failures of others. This study attempts such a systematic approach through a content analysis of state documents related to assisting and assessing teachers. The documents were analyzed to determine the major areas for assisting and assessing teaching included in state mandates and the levels of state control represented within these areas.