Teacher Self-Efficacy, Professional Commitment, and High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy in Louisiana

Abstract

Currently, a significant number of states are in the process of implementing a high-stakes teacher evaluation (HSTE) system. In many ways, Louisiana’s teacher evaluation system, Compass, is typical of the models that many states have adopted. This article reports the experiences of 37 elementary teachers from five districts across Louisiana after their first 2 years under this system. It is through the multiple lenses of teacher support, autonomy, self-efficacy, and satisfaction that we sought to understand how Compass has shaped teachers’ motivation for improvement as well as their continued commitment to the teaching profession. Analysis of longitudinal interview data reveals a widespread lack of support for change in the form of self-efficacy building experiences—particularly vicarious experiences—for teachers. As a result, many teachers experienced, by the second year, significant negative arousal events and profound losses of satisfaction and commitment to the profession—this despite most being rated as “highly effective.”

Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction

“…Though the evidence on performance or "merit" based pay is mixed, several recent experimental evaluation studies revealed limited, if any, change in student achievement, teacher motivation, attitudes, or instructional practice over time (Marsh et al, 2011;Springer et al, 2012;Yuan et al, 2013). Furthermore, recent scholarship has revealed some unintended consequences of current U.S. teacher evaluation policy, such as: lack of support and/or guidance in the use of teacher evaluation results (Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2012;Ford et al, 2017); lack of validity and/or reliability (either real or perceived) of evaluation results (Darling-Hammond et al, 2012;Ford et al, 2016;Jiang, Sporte, & Luppescu, 2015;Longo-Schmid, 2016;Reddy et al, 2017); and evidence of increase in adverse affective states for teachers subjected to high-stakes evaluation, such as high stress and anxiety as well as decreased job satisfaction, professional commitment, and turnover (Ford et al, 2017;Hewitt, 2015;Holloway & Brass, 2017;Ingersoll et al, 2016;Jiang et al, 2015).…”

“…When considered together, these trends in current education policy mark an important shift in the nature and scope of teacher professionalism, and this has implications for how teachers view their work and the satisfaction they derive from it (Ford et al, 2017;Hargreaves, 2010;Holloway & Brass, 2017;Torres & Weiner, 2018). In her work in the sociology of professions, Evetts (2009Evetts ( , 2011 distinguishes between occupational and organizational professionalism, with the former denoting a professionalism characterized by partnership, collegiality, autonomy, and trust, and the latter a professionalism of bureaucratic and hierarchical control, standardization, and hyperrationality.…”

“…As was mentioned previously, this is not the approach accountability systems in the U.S. generally take; thus the prevalence of extrinsic rewards/punishment tied to performance creates a fundamental misalignment between the motivational context and the approach (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). This misalignment manifests itself, among other ways, as increased stress, decreased satisfaction, and increased attrition (Ford et al, 2017;Saeki, Segool, Pendergast, & von der Embse, 2017;von der Embse et al, 2016;von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus, Wicoff, & Bowler, 2017). Refocusing the design and implementation of teacher evaluation to better reflect the characteristics of occupational professionalism-those things that provide teachers with a deep satisfaction in their work, namely partnership, collegiality, and autonomy-would begin the process of restoring working conditions to schools more conducive to meeting the psychological needs of teachers (Eyal & Roth, 2011;Ford & Ware, 2018;Roth, 2014;Ryan & Weinstein, 2009)…”

“…While the causes for these sharp changes in teacher well-being are not localized to one source, the increased demands placed on U.S. teachers due to accountability have likely exacerbated the problem (Hargreaves, 2010). Increased pressure to conform to outside expectations for their work has made it difficult for teachers to pursue the psychic rewards that attracted them to teaching in the first place (Ford, Van Sickle, Clark, Fazio-Brunson, & Schween, 2017;Ford, Van Sickle, & Fazio-Brunson, 2016;Hargreaves, 2003Hargreaves, , 2010Ingersoll, 2003). Furthermore, lack of support to match increased pressure is damaging to teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy and autonomy (Lavigne, 2014)-key sources of teacher satisfaction and intrinsic motivation for improvement (Firestone, 2014;Ingersoll, 2003;Lortie, 1975;Niemiec & Ryan, 2009;Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011Sylvia & Hutchinson, 1985).…”

¿Qué nos revelan los instrumentos de observación de aula sobre clases de matemática en escuelas con trayectoria de mejoramiento?

“…Sin embargo, al tratarse de herramientas con fuerte conexión en la teoría, con estándares altamente exigentes, corren el riesgo de perder utilidad, mostrando poca capacidad de discriminación entre una buena y una mala sala de clases (CALLAHAN; SADEGHI, 2015), poniendo alta presión sobre los docentes y las escuelas al asociar algún tipo de consecuencias a la evaluación con estos instrumentos. En otras palabras, los instrumentos corren el riesgo de tomar distancia de los escenarios empíricos, perdiendo utilidad para el mejoramiento de las prácticas y el desarrollo profesional (CALLAHAN;SADEGHI, 2015;SANTIAGO et al, 2013;FORD et al, 2015), y generando un efecto nocivo en las salas de clase por su uso para el accountability (FORD et al, 2015). Es preciso, por lo tanto, volver a mirar estos instrumentos de observación de aula y los rasgos de enseñanza efectiva que los sustentan, y contrastarlos con lo que realmente ocurre al interior de las aulas.…”