‘This is my new normal’: teachers’ accounts of evaluation policy at local school board meetings

References

• AERA Statement on Use of Value-Added Models. 2015. “(VAM) for the Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs.” Educational Researcher 44 (8): 448–452. doi:10.3102/0013189x15618385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amrein-Beardsley, A., and C. Collins. 2012. “The SAS Education Value-added Assessment System (SAS EVAAS) in the Houston Independent School District (HISD): Intended and Unintended Consequences.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 20 (12): 1–28. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/article/view/1096.
   Google Scholar
• Anagnostopoulos, D., B. Lingard, and S. Sellar. 2016. “Argumentation in Educational Policy Disputes: Competing Visions of Quality and Equity.” Theory into Practice 55 (4): 342–351. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1208071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anagnostopoulos, D., G. Sykes, R. McCrory, M. Cannata, and K. Frank. 2010. “Dollars, Distinction, or Duty? The Meaning of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards for Teachers’ Work and Collegial Relations.” American Journal of Education 116 (3): 337–369. doi:10.1086/651412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. 2004. “Reading Minds or Dealing with Interactional Implications?” Theory & Psychology 14 (5): 667–683. doi:10.1177/0959354304046178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., and M. Wetherell. 1999. “Show Concessions.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 7–27. doi:10.1177/1461445699001001002.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B. D., J. Oluwole, and P. C. Green III. 2013. “The Legal Consequences of Mandating High Stakes Decisions Based on Low Quality Information: Teacher Evaluation in the Race-to-the-Top Era.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 21 (5): 1–24. doi: 10.14507/e[aa.v21n5.2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. 2015. “Policy Actors/Policy Subjects.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (4): 467–467. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1038454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, H. I. 2005. Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED529977.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.10.4324/9780203410028
   Google Scholar
• Cha, S. H., and L. Cohen-Vogel. 2011. “Why They Quit: A Focused Look at Teachers Who Leave for Other Occupations.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22 (4): 371–392. doi:10.1080/09243453.2011.587437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cibulka, J. G., and R. L. Derlin. 1998. “Authentic Education Accountability Policies: Implementation of State Initiatives in Colorado and Maryland.” In The Politics of Accountability: Educative and International Perspectives, edited by R. J. S. Macpherson, 79–92. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clandinin, D. J., M. Kennedy, L. L. Rocque, and M. Pearce. 1996. “Living the Tension: A Case Study of Teacher Stories of Teacher Evaluation.” Journal of Education Policy 11 (2): 169–183. doi:10.1080/0268093960110203.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, W. 2011. “The Political Economy of Unhappiness.” New Left Review 71: 65–80. http://newleftreview.org.unr.idm.oclc.org/.
   Google Scholar
• de los Arcos, B., J. A. Coleman, and R. Hampel. 2009.Learners’ Anxiety in Audiographic Conferences: a Discursive Psychology Approach to Emotion Talk. ReCALL 21 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty, K. M., and S. Jacobs. 2013. State of the States 2013: Connect the Dots: Using Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness to Inform Policy and Practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, M. L., and P. Papay. 2012. Reforming Teacher Evaluation: One District’s Story. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, M. L., S. Woulfin, K. LeChasseur, and C. D. Cobb. 2016. “The Structure and Substance of Teachers’ Opportunities to Learn about Teacher Evaluation Reform: Promise or Pitfall for Equity?” Equity & Excellence in Education 49 (2): 183–201. doi:10.1080/10665684.2016.1144831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edley, N. 2001. “Analysing Masculinity: Interpretative Repertoires, Ideological Dilemmas and Subject Positions.” In Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, edited by M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, and S. Yates, 189–228. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 1999. “Emotion Discourse.” Culture Psychology 5: 271–290. doi:10.1177/1354067X9953001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2000. “Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 33 (4): 347–373. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, S-1177-2 Stat. (2015 December 10).
   Google Scholar
• Farris-Berg, K. 2012. “What It Means to ‘Believe in Teachers’.” Education Week 32 (5): 24–26. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/09/26/05farris-berg.h32.html.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, T. G., M. E. Van Sickle, L. V. Clark, M. Fazio-Brunson, and D. C. Schween. 2017. “Teacher Self-efficacy, Professional Commitment, and High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy in Louisiana.” Educational Policy 31 (2): 202–248. doi:10.1177/0895904815586855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel, R., and J. N. Lester. 2013. “Sentinels Guarding the Grail: Value-Added Measurement and the Quest for Education Reform.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 21 (9): 1–30 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n9.2013.
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel, R., and T. M. Paulus. 2014. “Committees and Controversy Consultants in the Construction of Education Policy.” Educational Policy 29 (7): 984–1011. doi:10.1177/0895904814531650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Haertel, E. 2013. Reliability and Validity of Inferences about Teachers Based on Student Test Scores (Angoff Lecture). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 2004. “Discourse Analysis.” In Handbook of Data Analysis, edited by M. A. Hardy and A. Bryman, 607–624. London: Sage.10.4135/9781848608184
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., and J. Wagner. 2015. Recalibrating the Context for Reported Speech and Thought Text & Talk 35: 707–729. doi:10.1515/text-2015-0025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A. 2003. An Introduction to Critical Social Psychology. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by G. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns
   Google Scholar
• Katsuno, M. 2010. “Teacher Evaluation in Japanese Schools: An Examination from a Micro‐political or Relational Viewpoint.” Journal of Education Policy 25 (3): 293–307. doi:10.1080/02680931003700431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., and P. Youngs. 2016. “Promoting Instructional Improvement or Resistance? A Comparative Study of Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Evaluation Policy in Korea and the USA” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (5): 723–744. doi:10.1080/03057925.2015.1057478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavigne, A. L. 2014. “Exploring the Intended and Unintended Consequences of High-stakes Teacher Evaluation on Schools, Teachers, and Students.” Teachers College Record 116 (1): 1–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard, S. N., and P. Roberts. 2016. “No Time to Think: Policy, Pedagogy and Professional Learning.” Journal of Education Policy 31 (2): 142–160. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1047801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester, J. N., C. Lochmiller, and R. Gabriel. 2016. “Locating and Applying Critical Discourse Analysis within Education Policy.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 24 (102): 1–11. doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2768.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. 1980. Street Level Bureaucrats. Nova York, NY: Russel Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Loeb, S., L. Darling-Hammond, and J. Luczak. 2005. “How Teaching Conditions Predict Teacher Turnover in California Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education 80 (3): 44–70. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4.
   Google Scholar
• MacMillan, K., and D. Edwards. 1999. “Who Killed the Princess? Description and Blame in the British Press.” Discourse Studies 1 (2): 151–174.
   Google Scholar
• Mausethagen, S. 2013. “A Research Review of the Impact of Accountability Policies on Teachers’ Workplace Relations.” Educational Research Review 9: 16–33. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, X. A., L. Darling-Hammond, E. Haertel, and E. Thomas. 2010. “Value-added Modeling of Teacher Effectiveness: An Exploration of Stability across Models and Contexts.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 18 (23): 1–23. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nikander, P. 2007. “Emotions in Meeting Talk.” In Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction, edited by A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins, 50–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611216
   Google Scholar
• ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Noblit, G. W., S. Y. Flores, and E. G. Murillo, eds. 2004. Postcritical Ethnography: Reinscribing Critique. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Governor of the State of Tennessee. 2010. Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/tennessee.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Papay, J. 2012. “Refocusing the Debate: Assessing the Purposes and Tools of Teacher Evaluation.” Harvard Educational Review 82 (1): 123–141. doi:10.17763/haer.82.1.v40p0833345w6384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulus, T. M., and J. N. Lester. 2013. “Making Learning Ordinary: Ways Undergraduates Display Learning in a CMC Task.” Text & Talk 33 (1): 53–70. doi:10.1515/text-2013-0003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perna, L. W., K. Orosz, B. Gopaul, Z. Jumakulov, A. Ashirbekov, and M. Kishkentayeva. 2014. “Promoting Human Capital Development: A Typology of International Scholarship Programs in Higher Education.” Educational Researcher 43 (2): 63–73. 0013189X14521863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, K. 2004. “Research on School Teacher Evaluation.” NASSP Bulletin 88 (639): 60–79.10.1177/019263650408863906
   Google Scholar
• Porter , A. C., P. Youngs, and A. Odden. 2001. “Advances in Teacher Assessments and Their Uses.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 4th ed., 259–297. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 2012. “Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological and Biological, edited by H. Cooper, 111–130, vol. 2. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and D. Edwards. 2003. “Sociolinguistics, Cognitivism and Discursive Psychology.” In Sociolinguistics and Social Theory. vol. 3, edited by N. Coupland, S. Sarangi and C. N. Candlin, 93–109. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2010. “A Kind of Governance: Rules, Time and Psychology, in Organisations.” In Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, edited by N. Llewellyn and J. Hindmarsh, 49–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511676512
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts-Mahoney, H., A. J. Means, and M. J. Garrison. 2016. “Netflixing Human Capital Development: Personalized Learning Technology and the Corporatization of K-12 Education.” Journal of Education Policy 31 (4): 405–420. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1132774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schochet, P. Z., and H. S. Chiang. 2010. Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. W. 1961. “Investment in Human Capital.” The American Economic Review 51 (1): 1–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M. P., and L. Sartain. 2015. “Does Teacher Evaluation Improve School Performance? Experimental Evidence from Chicago's Excellence in Teaching Project.” Education Finance and Policy 10 (4): 535–572. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. H. 2012. “Moving Forward with Membership Categorization Analysis: Methods for Systematic Analysis.” Discourse Studies 14 (3): 277–303. doi:10.1177/1461445612441534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, K., and M. Durfy. 2007. “Speaking out in Public: Citizen Participation in Contentious School Board Meetings.” Discourse & Communication 1 (2): 223–249. doi:10.1177/1750481307076008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuytens, M., and G. Devos. 2014. “How to Activate Teachers through Teacher Evaluation?” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 25 (4): 509–530. doi:10.1080/09243453.2013.842601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ujifusa, A. 2017, May 4. “ESSA Rules’ Rollback Complicates States’ Planning.” Education Week 37 (25). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/03/22/essa-rules-rollback-complicates-states-planning.html.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. 2009. Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Washington, DC: USED.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. 2010. State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left behind Act, Volume IX – Accountability under NCLB: Final Report. Washington, DC: USED.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. 2012, February 9. Remarks by the President on No Child Left behind Flexibility. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/remarks-president-no-child-left-behind-flexibility.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. 2016. Teacher Preparation Issues Final Regulations. Washington, DC. http://www2.ed.gov/documents/teaching/teacher-prep-final-regs.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, D., S. Sexton, J. Mulhern, and D. Keeling. 2009. The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. New York: The New Teacher Project.
   Google Scholar
• Wetherell, M. 1998. “Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post-structuralism in Dialogue.” Discourse & Society 9 (3): 387–412. doi:10.1177/0957926598009003005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. 2014. “Family Mealitimes, Yuckiness and the Socialization of Disgust Responses by Presechool Children.” In Language and Food: Verbal and Nonverbal Experiences, edited by P. Szatrowski, 211–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns
   Google Scholar
• Wise, A. E., L. Darling-Hammond, M. W. McLaughlin, and H. T. Bernstein. 1985. “Teacher Evaluation: A Study of Effective Practices.” The Elementary School Journal 86 (1): 61–121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001217.10.1086/461437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, J. L. N. 2008. “How Does the New Emphasis on Managerialism in Education Redefine Teacher Professionalism? A Case Study in Guangdong Province of China.” Educational Review 60 (3): 267–282. doi:10.1080/00131910802195869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, K. K. 2015. “Federal ESEA Waivers as Reform Leverage: Politics and Variation in State Implementation.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 45 (3): 405–426. doi:10.1093/publius/pjv020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, L. A., and R. O. Kroger. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar