High Stakes without the Stakes: Positioning Music Educators amid Teacher Evaluation Reforms

Ryan D. Shaw
{"title":"High Stakes without the Stakes: Positioning Music Educators amid Teacher Evaluation Reforms","authors":"Ryan D. Shaw","doi":"10.1177/00274321221090928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Teacher-focused accountability started to ramp up in the United States in 2007–2010 as the focus of accountability shifted from schools to individual teachers. Since that time, there has been a remarkable amount of change to the way that teachers are evaluated, and music teachers have been placed squarely under the microscope of accountability. In this article, I focus on high-stakes teacher evaluation (HSTE), a collection of reforms that are among the most hot-button issues of the past ten years. I argue that despite the intentions of these reforms, they were mostly “high stakes” only on paper. However, HSTE reforms have been far from inconsequential, with numerous negative effects on teachers. I first review the origins and logic of the HSTE reforms and discuss how music teachers were considered in such policy conversations. I then demonstrate how the reforms were mostly characterized by bluster and incomplete/subverted implementation, and I attempt to explain the reasons for the sputtering of HSTE. Finally, I discuss the negative consequences of HSTE and offer recommendations for music teachers as they navigate teacher evaluation in the future.","PeriodicalId":18823,"journal":{"name":"Music Educators Journal","volume":"520 1","pages":"38 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Music Educators Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321221090928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Teacher-focused accountability started to ramp up in the United States in 2007–2010 as the focus of accountability shifted from schools to individual teachers. Since that time, there has been a remarkable amount of change to the way that teachers are evaluated, and music teachers have been placed squarely under the microscope of accountability. In this article, I focus on high-stakes teacher evaluation (HSTE), a collection of reforms that are among the most hot-button issues of the past ten years. I argue that despite the intentions of these reforms, they were mostly “high stakes” only on paper. However, HSTE reforms have been far from inconsequential, with numerous negative effects on teachers. I first review the origins and logic of the HSTE reforms and discuss how music teachers were considered in such policy conversations. I then demonstrate how the reforms were mostly characterized by bluster and incomplete/subverted implementation, and I attempt to explain the reasons for the sputtering of HSTE. Finally, I discuss the negative consequences of HSTE and offer recommendations for music teachers as they navigate teacher evaluation in the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有赌注的高风险:在教师评价改革中定位音乐教育者
2007-2010年,随着问责的重点从学校转移到教师个人,以教师为中心的问责制开始在美国兴起。从那时起,评估教师的方式发生了显著变化,音乐教师被直接置于问责的显微镜下。在这篇文章中,我将重点关注高风险教师评估(HSTE),这是过去十年中最热门问题之一的一系列改革。我认为,尽管这些改革意图明确,但它们大多只是纸面上的“高风险”。然而,HSTE改革并不是无关紧要的,对教师产生了许多负面影响。我首先回顾了HSTE改革的起源和逻辑,并讨论了在这种政策对话中如何考虑音乐教师。然后,我展示了改革的主要特点是如何咆哮和不完整/颠覆的实施,我试图解释HSTE溅落的原因。最后,我讨论了HSTE的负面影响,并为音乐教师在未来的教师评估中提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In Memoriam Robert William Smith Equity in Music Education: Incorporating Queer Theory into Culturally Responsive Teaching Take Note: Serving the Profession: “We Are Here to Help Each Other” The President’s Prose: Centering Our Why Educating Ears: The Role of Sound in Music Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1