• Mindy L. Kornhaber Pennsylvania State University


education system, teachers evaluation polities, standards-based reform, teacherspractice, teachers performance,


Teaching is a complex task. It requires academic content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge and skills, organizational skills, understanding of human development,
and interpersonal skills to engage with students, colleagues, and, in the United
States, increasingly diverse families. Given its complexity, its evaluation likely
needs to be multifaceted. This article first briefly presents the policy context for
teacher evaluation in the United States. It then examines policies under which
students’ scores from standardized tests have been the essential source of data to
evaluate teacher performance and describes how these evaluation systems
influence teachers’ classroom practice. Finally, it briefly considers evaluation
systems that may better reflect, inform, and support the complex task of teaching.


Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the Bubble: “Educational Triage†and the Texas

Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.

Campbell, D.T. (1976). Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change. Occasional Paper

Series, Paper #8, The Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College. Available at


Dappen L. & Isernhagen, J.C. (2005) Nebraska STARS: Assessment for learning. Planning

and Changing, 36, 3&4, pp. 147–156.

Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., and Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking the long view:

State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Palo

Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Available at


Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student

test scores. Available at www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf

Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable scholars: The rebirth of a great American school system and a

strategy for America's schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Kornhaber, M.L., Barkauskas, N.J., Griffith, K.M., Sausner, E.B., and Mahfouz, J. (2017).

The Common Core's promises and pitfalls from the perspectives of policy entrepreneurs and

ground-level actors. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 385-412.

Leachman, M., Masterson, K., and Figueroa, E. (2017). A punishing decade for school

funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available at


McCray, V. (2018, October 9). With hymns and prayers, ex-APS educator reports for prison

in cheating scandal. The Atlanta Constitution-Journal. Available at



National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Fast Facts. Available at


The Nation’s Report Card, Achievement Gap Dashboard (n.d.).


Neal, D, and Schanzenbach, D.W. (2010). Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and

Test-Based Accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283

Nichols, S. L., and Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing

corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

O'Day, J. and Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman

(Ed.), Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System (pp. 250-312). San

Francisco: Jossey-

Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of error. New York: Vintage Books/Random House

Smith, J. E., and Kovacs, P. E. (2011). The impact of standards based reform on teachers:

the case of ‘No Child Left Behind.’ Teachers and Teaching, 17(2). Available at


Smith, M. S., and O'Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform

(CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06-4/91). New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in


Strauss, V. (2016, May 10). Judge calls evaluation of N.Y. teacher ‘arbitrary’ and ‘capricious’

in case against new U.S. secretary of education. The Washington Post. Available at




U.S. Department of Education, Laws & Guidance, Elementary & Secondary Education, Part I

-- General Provisions. Section 1905 (No Child Left Behind),