Teacher Evaluation Policy and Conflicting Theories of Motivation

Educational Researcher

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 100-107

  Firestone, William A ^a  

^a The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

Author keywords

motivation; performance assessment; policy; policy analysis; teacher assessment; teacher context

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894822748     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X14521864     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Baker E. L.,Barton P. E.,Darling-Hammond L.,Haertel E.,Ladd H. F.,Linn R. L.,Shepard L. A.Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute; 2010:.
2. Ball D. L.,Bass H.Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Boaler J., ed. Westport, CT: Ablex; 2000:83-104.
3. Bandura A.Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1997:.
4. Bell C. A. Paper presented at the 14th annual Reidy Interactive Lecture Series; 2012Boston, MA; 2012.
5. Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET Project's three-year study. Seattle, WA: Author; 2013:.
6. Black P.,Wiliam D.Developing the theory of formative assessment.Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability. 2009;21:5-31.
7. Booher-Jennings J.Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system.American Educational Research Journal. 2005;42:231-268.
8. Borko H.Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.Educational Researcher. 2004;33 (3): 3-15.
9. Brown A. B.,Clift J. W.The unequal effect of adequate yearly progress: Evidence from school visits.American Educational Research Journal. 2010;47:774-798.
10. Burgess S.,Ratto M.The role of incentives in the public sector: Issues and evidence.Oxford Review of Public Policy. 2003;19:285-300.
11. Cameron J.,Pierce W. D.Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research. 1994;64:363-423.
12. Cohen D. K.,Raudenbush S. W.,Ball D. L.Resources, instruction, and research.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2003;25:119-142.
13. Quality teaching in New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education; 2005:.
14. Corwin R. G.,Borman K. M.Handbook of research on educational administration. Boyan N. J., ed. New York, NY: Longman; 1988:209-238.
15. Curtis R.Building it together: The design and implementation of Hillsborough County public schools' teacher evaluation system. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute; 2012:.
16. Danielson C.,McGreal T. G.Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2000:.
17. Deci E. L.,Ryan R. M.Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.Learning & Individual Differences. 1996;8:165-184.
18. Eisenhardt K. M.Agency theory: An assessment and review.Academy of Management Review. 1989;14:57-74.
19. Firestone W. A.Merit pay and job enlargement as reforms: Incentives, implementation, and teacher response.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1991;13:269-288.
20. Firestone W. A.,Blitz C. L.,Gitomer D. H.,Gradinarova-Kirova D.,Shcherbakov A.,Nordin T. L.Year 1 report: New Jersey teacher evaluation pilot program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education; 2013:.
21. Firestone W. A.,Hirsch L. S.A formative evaluation of New Jersey's professional development requirements for teachers: Year 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Educational Policy Analysis; 2006:.
22. Firestone W. A.,Nordin T. L.,Shcherbakov A.,Blitz C. L.,Kirova D.New Jersey teacher evaluation: Rutgers Graduate School of Education, Year 2 final report. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Effective School Practices; in press:.
23. Firestone W. A.,Pennell J. R.Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies.Review of Educational Research. 1993;63:489-529.
24. Firestone W. A.,Rosenblum S.Building commitment in urban high schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1988;23:285-300.
25. Garet M. S.,Porter A. C.,Desimone L.,Birman B. F.,Yoon K. S.What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal. 2001;38:915-946.
26. Glazerman S.,Seifullah A.An evaluation of the Chicago teacher advancement program (Chicago TAP) after four years. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research; 2012:.
27. Goldhaber D.,Hansen M.Implicit measurement of teacher quality: Using performance on the job to inform teacher tenure decisions.American Economic Review. 2010;100:250-255.
28. Hackman J. R.,Oldham G. R.Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1980:.
29. Hamilton L.,Berends M.,Stecher B.Teachers' responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2005:.
30. Hamilton L. S.,Stecher B. M.,Yuan K.Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: Center on Education Policy, RAND; 2008:.
31. Hanushek E. A.,Rivkin S. G.Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality.American Economic Review. 2010;100:267-271.
32. Hart A. W.,Murphy M. J.New teachers react to redesigned teacher work.American Journal of Education. 1990;98:224-250.
33. Haubrich J. G.Risk aversion, performance pay, and the principal-agent problem.Journal of Political Economy. 1994;102:258-276.
34. Heinrich C. J.,Marschke G.Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2010;29:183-208.
35. Hess F. M.Common sense school reform.American Experiment Quarterly. 2004;7:16-44.
36. Heyburn S.,Lewis J.,Ritter G.Teacher incentive fund grantees. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt University; 2010:.
37. Hill H. C.,Kaptula L.,Umland K.A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores.American Educational Research Journal. 2011;48:794-831.
38. Ingersoll R. M.,May H.The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2012;34:435-464.
39. Jennings J.The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data.Teachers College Record. 2012;114 (11): 1-23.
40. Johnson S. M.Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1990:.
41. Johnson S. M.,Birkeland S. E.Pursuing a "sense of success": New teachers explain their career decisions.American Educational Research Journal. 2003;40:581-617.
42. Knapp M. S.Review of research in education. Floden R. E., ed. Washington, DC: AERA; 2003:109-157.
43. Kolbe T.,Strunk K. O.Economic incentives as a strategy for responding to teacher staffing problems: A typology of policies and practices.Educational Administration Quarterly. 2012;48:779-813.
44. Kushman J. W.The organizational dynamics of teacher workplace commitment: A study of urban elementary and middle schools.Educational Administration Quarterly. 1992;28:5-42.
45. Lawler E. E.Strategic pay. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990:.
46. Leithwood K.,Jantzi D.A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005.Leadership and Policy in Schools. 2005;4:177-199.
47. Lepper M. R.,Henderlong J.Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. Sansone C.Harackiewicz J., ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000:257-307.
48. Locke E. A.,Latham G. P.Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.American Psychologist. 2002;57:705-717.
49. Lortie D. C.The semi-professions and their organization. Etzioni A., ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1969:.
50. Marsh J. A.,Springer M. G.,McCaffrey D. F.,Yuan K.,Epstein S.,Koppich J., Peng A.A big apple for educators: New York City's experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses: Final evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2011:.
51. McCaffrey D. F.,Lockwood J. R.,Koretz D. M.,Hamilton L. S.Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2003:.
52. Milanowski A.,Kimball S. M.The framework-based teacher performance assessment systems in Cincinnati and Washoe. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education; 2003:.
53. Miller G. J.The political evolution of principal-agent models.Annual Review of Political Science. 2005;8:203-225.
54. Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011:.
55. Notice of grant opportunity: Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) pilot program teacher effectiveness program. Trenton, NJ: Author; 2011:.
56. Odden A.,Kelley C.Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. 2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; 2002:.
57. Pendergast C.Intrinsic motivation and incentives.American Economic Review. 2008;98:201-205.
58. Perry J. L.,Engbers T. A.,Jun S. Y.Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence.Public Administration Review. 2009;69:39-51.
59. Podgursky M. J.,Springer M. G.Teacher performance pay: A review.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2007;26:909-950.
60. Rowan B.,Correnti R.,Miller R. J.What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools.Teachers College Record. 2006;104:1525-1567.
61. Ryan R. M.,Deci E. L.Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?.Journal of Personality. 2006;74:1557-1586.
62. Sanders W. L.,Horn S.The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 1994;8:299-311.
63. Springer M. G.Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K-12 education. Springer M. G., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2009:1-21.
64. SpringerM. G.BallouD.HamiltonL. S.Vi-NhuanL.LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F. StecherB. (2011, March). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching (POINT) [Abstract]. Paper presented at the Spring 2011 Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.sree.org/conferences/2011/program/downloads/abstracts/136.pdf.
65. Springer M. G.,Ballou D.,Peng A.Impact of the teacher advancement program on student test score gains: An independent appraisal. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives; 2008:.
66. Springer M. G.,Pane J.,Vi-Nhuan L.,McCaffrey D. F.,Burns S. F.,Hamilton L. S.,Stecher B. M.Team pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the round rock pilot project on team incentives.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2012;34:367-390.
67. Supovitz J. A.Getting at student understanding-The key to teachers' use of test data.Teachers College Record. 2012;114 (11): 1-29.
68. Understanding the teacher advancement program. Santa Monica, CA: Author; n.d.:.
69. Tschannen-Moran M.,Woolfolk Hoy A.,Hoy W. K.Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of Educational Research. 1998;68:202-248.
70. Race to the top program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author; 2009:.
71. Vroom V. H.Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1964:.
72. Weick K.Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.Administrative Science Quarterly. 1976;21:1-19.
73. Weisberg D.,Sexton S.,Mulhern J.,Keeling D.The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project; 2009:.
74. Weiss J. A.Data for improvement, data for accountability.Teachers College Record. 2012;114 (11):.
75. Yuan K.,Vi-Nhuan L.,McCaffrey D. F.,Marsh J. A.,Hamilton L. S.,Stecher B. M.,Springer M. G.Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies.Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis. 2012;35:3-22.