A Taxonomy of Subjective Control: Teachers‘ Narrative Accounts of a Teacher Evaluation System

Abstract

Background or Context: Federal and state reforms have expanded accountability systems for school districts, schools, and teachers. However, there is little evidence that the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems relying on measures of student learning and measures of teaching practice, with differentiated performance categories and rewards and sanctions, have had broad positive influences on teaching practice and student learning. Purpose, Objective, Research Question, or Focus of Study: We seek to contribute to an understanding of the modest influence of teacher evaluation systems by focusing on the targets of the policies—teachers—and how they experience the evaluation systems. Drawing on principal-agent theory and control-value theory, each of which suggests that teacher control over their performance evaluations influences their behavioral responses to them, we develop a taxonomy of teachers’ narratives of their subjective control of their evaluations. Research Design: We interviewed 141 New York City teachers working in 27 traditional elementary, middle, and high schools in the 2015–16 school year, asking about their experiences with Advance, the New York City annual teacher evaluation system. We developed a thematic analysis system for coding and analyzing the interviews that began with a set of categories reflective of the larger project’s research questions and prior research on performance evaluation in general and teacher evaluation in particular. All told, we coded 4,077 excerpts from the 141 teacher interviews, an average of about 29 excerpts per interview. Findings: Seventy-one percent of the teachers in our sample indicated that they had no control over some aspect of their teacher evaluation ratings. Teachers noted three areas in their ratings that they deemed out of their control: other people’s behaviors, notably students, teachers, and the administrators observing and rating their classroom practice; the technology of teacher evaluation, especially the features of observation rubrics and student assessments, and for some teachers, statistical models; and the broader social context of the school, particularly the resources available to support teachers and students and the uncertainties of students’ home lives. A small number of teachers noted their control over their teaching practices and control over their own thoughts and behaviors. Conclusions or Recommendations: This study was situated in New York City at a time when many teachers believed the teacher evaluation system was designed to be punitive. Under these circumstances, teachers’ responses to the evaluation system hinge on their trust in school leadership and their perceptions of how much voice they have in the design and implementation of the system. This trust is enhanced when teachers have confidence that principals are able to observe their practice accurately and consistently.