Yesterday I sat in on our weekly student teacher seminar course at Michigan State University, when the name Charlotte Danielson entered the conversation. Danielson, a former economist, educator, and political consultant, is the author of the Framework for Teaching, one of the most commonly used models for defining quality teaching in the United States (The Danielson Group, 2017a). I started to cringe, as it brought back memories of terms like “teacher evaluation,” “highly effective,” and, worst of all, “high-stakes.” I started to remember times during my teaching when, after an observation by my principal, I genuinely thought I would be fired because I failed to state an objective, or my students were perceived by an observer as too rambunctious. When I heard the name Charlotte Danielson, one word came to my mind: Fear.
I was therefore surprised when a veteran music teacher started to talk about the Danielson framework with the student teachers in a positive way. She talked about how, when she used the framework, her students began to use a common vocabulary, developed higher-order thinking skills, and focused on objectives without taking away from the musical flow of the lesson. In other words, her students were learning, and she was learning as a teacher. After listening to this veteran music teacher, a very different word came to my mind: Growth.
I started to wonder: Has my approach to music teacher evaluation and assessment been wrong this whole time? Come to think of it, what exactly are we talking about when we use the words evaluation and assessment? Can a tool be used for student/teacher growth and for evaluating teacher effectiveness?
Linda-Darling Hammond, education professor emeritus at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association, describes teacher evaluations as standards-based performances of teacher competency that function as part of broader accountability systems:
Like businesses that use a dashboard of measures to provide a comprehensive picture of performance, we need to allow and enable accountability systems that create dashboards of indicators for all key decisions (student placement, promotion, graduation; teacher evaluation, tenure, dismissal; school recognition, intervention). (2014, p. 105)
Darling-Hammond also asserts, “Teacher evaluation processes are connected to teacher growth and development rather than punitive accountability” (2017, p. 16). Yet as I read through her books, while I find many references to student assessments, references to teacher assessment are rare.
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching makes multiple references to the word “assessment” within the domains of planning, environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. However, Danielson makes no references to the word “evaluation.” (The Danielson Group, 2017b). Ironically, the description of the framework on the Danielson Group website makes multiple references to the word evaluation, but no references to assessment. In other words, the framework was created with the intention to focus on assessment, but it is marketed as a tool for evaluation.
Federal legislation concerning assessment and evaluation match up with what I read in works by Darling-Hammond and Danielson. Upon reading over federal education legislation including the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), the Race to the Top competitive funding program (2009), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), three things became apparent:
- The word “evaluation” almost always refers to teachers and school leaders, not students.
- The word “assessment” almost always refers to students and standardized tests.
- When “assessment” refers to teachers, it is usually in the context of the word “teacher performance assessment.”
Why is the word “evaluation” used so often for teachers? The 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 Education, 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. The 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 “below 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 expectations. Even a tenured teacher can lose tenure if they consistently 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] Specifically, the law has changed to prioritize student assessments and student growth. While I believe that teacher evaluation (accountability) 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 Danielson framework to their advantage, no music teacher was involved in the development of the framework itself.
How can teacher evaluation become more focused on teacher growth? I am a proponent of focusing on artistic processes 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) project, to provide specific information designed to guide music teachers toward demonstrating student growth (MAEIA, 2018). As Robinson explains (2015), “many music teachers do not have the time or the measurement expertise to develop their own assessments” (p. 15). The MAEIA assessments, 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 annual 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 accountability. Even the National Association for Music Education (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).
I believe that grassroots efforts in music education to reshape evaluation, like MAEIA, are important steps in reshaping the definition of accountability for music teachers. Likewise, I believe that such projects are important in reshaping the definition of growth in music. Therefore, while not definitive, I submit the following ideas for consideration:
- 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 often means a score-based, punitive process.
- Music teachers who are struggling with demonstrating student growth should consider exploring the assessments found in the MAEIA project.
- Music teachers who are struggling with teacher accountability or are being unfairly evaluated by measures such as math or reading test scores should consider using MAEIA resources as a conversation starter. This could help to change the narrative with administrators from counterproductive accountability to relevant growth.
In a time of political uncertainty and instability in education, music educators may be in a unique position to speak to building administrators and state leaders about evaluation and assessment. Through the work of projects such as MAEIA, we have models of assessment. Furthermore, by knowing the difference, we as music educators can work together to push the pendulum away from accountability-driven education and back to growth-based education. I invite music educators across the state to consider participating in these collaborative efforts by exploring MAEIA resources and changing the way we talk about assessment and evaluation within our professional learning communities.
[1] Tennessee Code § 49-1-302 (2016).
[2] 2018 House Bill 5707 would return the percentage to 25. The bill passed in the State House on December 13, 2018, and it awaits approval from the State Senate.
References
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Next generation assessment: Moving beyond the bubble test to support 21st century learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Empowered educators: How high performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Project (MAEIA). (2018). Michigan Arts Education Instruction & Assessment. Retrieved from https://maeia-artsednetwork.org
Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Instructions for using the Michigan Department of Education SLO student growth measurement tool. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Instructions_for_Using_the_MDE_SLO_Student_Growth_Measurement_Tool_558771_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Student growth for educator evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5683_75438_78528—,00.html
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319. (2002).
Robinson, M. (2015). The inchworm and the nightingale: On the (mis) use of data in music teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 116(1), 9-21.
Teacher Effectiveness Measure. (2015). The teacher effectiveness manual. Retrieved from http://www.scsk12.org/uf/memo/files/files/15-16%20TEM%20Manual- final.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2014) New tenure law. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/legal/legal_tenure_faq.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2015). Teacher and administrator evaluation in Tennessee. Retrieved from http://team-tn.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/rpt_teacher_evaluation_year_32.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2017). Attachment 2: Shelby County salary schedule. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/meetingfiles /8-25-17_IV_B_LEA_Alternative_Salary_Schedule_Attachment_2.pdf
The Danielson Group. (2017). The Framework. Retrieved from https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/
United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program executive summary. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf