refers to students and standardized tests. 3. When “assessment” refers to teachers, it is usually in the context of the word “teacher performance assess- ment.”
Why is the word “evaluation” used so oſten for teachers? Te answer may lie in how we conceptualize teacher growth and development.
As a music teacher in Tennessee, the word “evaluation” meant whether or not I would still have a job. During my first year of teaching in Memphis, the state had changed their legislation to link teacher evaluation scores to tenure, salary, and termination (Tennessee Department of Educa- tion, 2017).1
As a “non-tested” teacher in 2011—meaning I
did not teach in a grade/subject tested on the annual state exams—I learned that half of my evaluation would be based on the reading and math test scores of my students (Teacher Effectiveness Measure, 2015). In other words, if my students scored “below expectations” on their state tests in reading and math, then I would score “below expectations” on half of my evaluation. Te other half of my evaluation consisted mostly of observations by my principal. I remember looking at a teacher observation rubric, similar to the Danielson framework that had over 100 indicators of things I needed to say, do, or facilitate to “meet expectations.” As a first year teacher having just moved from New York to Memphis, this was overwhelming.
When my first observation came back with scores “be- low expectations,” I asked my principal, “Am I going to be fired?” Tennessee legislation allows for (and in some cases, mandates) the removal of teachers who score below expec- tations. Even a tenured teacher can lose tenure if they con- sistently score below expectations (Tennessee Department of Education, 2014, 2015).
According to the Michigan Department of Education, “Beginning in 2018-2019, the law requires that 40 percent of half of teacher and administrator evaluations be based on “student growth and assessment data,” up from 25 percent the previous school year (Michigan Department of Education, 2018b). As the emphasis on student growth increases, so does the accountability for music teachers to “measure student growth on the most essential standards and elements that define student success within the class” (Michigan Department of Education, 2018a).2
How can teacher evaluation become more focused on teach- er growth? I am a proponent of focusing on artistic process- es like creating, performing, responding, and connecting in organizing goals for student growth. I have found resources categorized around these processes, such as the Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment (MAEIA) proj- ect, to provide specific information designed to guide music teachers toward demonstrating student growth (MAEIA, 2018). As Robinson explains (2015), “many music teach- ers do not have the time or the measurement expertise to develop their own assessments” (p. 15). Te MAEIA assess- ments, designed by Michigan arts educators, provide a head start in this sense. But just finding quality assessments is not enough to ensure a meaningful process for the teacher, as I found when turning in a portfolio as part of my an- nual evaluations. Over time, I found that portfolio scoring guides became more and more generic to the point that the purpose of the scoring guide became the ability to generate a score, not the ability to interpret what that score meant in terms of student growth.
While my school district had outstanding educators who helped to make a variety of rubrics, I struggled to find any resources focused on teacher growth instead of account- ability. Even the National Association for Music Educa- tion (NAfME) has workbooks for building and evaluating effective music education designed to “offer teachers, peer evaluators, and administrators…examples of professional evaluations of music teachers” (NAfME, 2013). Where then, can music teachers go to find sources of professional growth that are not rooted in accountability measures?
For one example, I return to the MAEIA project. With a deeper look, one sees that the MAEIA project emphasizes its namesake: it promotes growth in both instruction and assessment practices. Terminology is important here, as MAEIA focuses on “assessment” and makes few mentions of the word “evaluation” on their website. Furthermore, MAEIA served as a grassroots effort: “Since 2012 over 1,000 Michigan arts educators have contributed to the MAEIA project” (MAEIA, 2018).
Specifically,
the law has changed to prioritize student assessments and student growth. While I believe that teacher evaluation (ac- countability) is important, I believe that teacher assessment (growth) has been neglected in schools. Furthermore, while music teachers may be able to find ways to use the Daniel- son framework to their advantage, no music teacher was involved in the development of the framework itself.
15
I believe that grassroots efforts in music education to reshape evaluation, like MAEIA, are important steps in reshaping the definition of accountability for music teach- ers. Likewise, I believe that such projects are important in reshaping the definition of growth in music. Terefore, while not definitive, I submit the following ideas for consid- eration:
1. Assessment and evaluation are not the same, and we must be intentional about developing a common discourse that separates the two. Assessment is about growth—for students and teachers—and evaluation too oſten means a score-based, punitive process.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
