Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED290792: Teacher Evaluation: Reinforcing Mechanical Instruction."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 



ED 290 792 



TM Oil 032 



AUTHOR 
TITLE 

PUB DATE 
NOTE 



PUB TYPE 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



Bryant, Miles T. 

Teacher Evaluation: Reinforcing Mechanical 
Instruction . 
Oct 87 

26p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 
American Evaluation Association (Boston, MA, October 
15-17, 1987). 

Reports ^ Research/Technical (143) — 
Speeches/Conference Papers (150) 

MF01/PC02 Plus Postage. 

^Creative Teaching; Marxian Analysis; Organizational 
Objectives; Teacher Behavior; Teacher Effectiveness; 
*Teacher Evaluation; Teacher Supervision 



ABSTRACT 

The common assumption that teacher evaluation has a 
positive impact on the improvement of teaching is challenged. 
Critical challenges to the assumed contribution of teacher evaluation 
to learning originate from at least three areas of scholarly work: 
(1) revisionist/Marxist literature, which describes educational 
structures including teacher evaluation as mechanisms for reproducing 
the social and economic class distinctions of society; (2) literature 
on educational organizations and teaching, which examines 
relationships between the management and service sectors; and (3) 
literature on the educational and social factors that contribute to 
the development of creativity. While teacher evaluation may promote 
teacher behavior that is oriented toward organizational goals, there 
is little evidence that it contributes to an improvement in learning. 
It appears that teacher evaluation may, indeed, be detrimental to 
creative teaching. (TJH) 



* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * 

* from the O'^iginal document. * 



4 



O 

o 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



TEACHER EVALUATION: REINFORCING MECHANICAL INSTRUCTION 

Miles T. Bryant 
Dept. of EducatiDnal Administration 
Seaton Hall 1209 
University of Nebraska at Lincoln 
Lincoln, NE 68588-0638 

Fall 1987 



Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Evaluation Association, October 15-17, 1987, Boston, MA. 



"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS 
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 



TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 
INFCRMATION CENTER (ERIC)/' 



U.S. DEPAFtTMENT Of EDUCATION 

Office ol Educational Res«arCh and lr>provemeni 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 
CENTER (ERIC) 

XThis docunf)ent has boen reproduced as 
received tfom the person or organization 
Originating il 
C Minor Changes have been made to improve 
reproduction quality 

« Pointsof view oropinions stated mthisdocu- 
ment do not necessarily represent official 
OERI position or policy 



I 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 




CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



ABSTRACT 



The common assumption that teacher evaluation has a 
positive impact on the improvement of teaching is 
chal enged. Marxist critiques of schooling and selected 
organizational theory are tuo literatures used as a base for 
questioning the efficacy of teacher evaluation practices* 
Then recent uork on the inpact of evaluation on creativity 
is utilized to extend the challenge to teacher evaluation 
proponents* The author argues that teacher evaluation may 
be inherently detrimental to creative teaching* 



■4 ^ 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



TEACHER EVALUATION: REINFORCING MECHANICAL INSTRUCTION 



Uhat's really angering about instructions 
of this sort is that they imply there's 
only one uay to put this rotisserie 
together — their uay* And that presumption 
wipes out all of the creativity* Actually 
there are hundreds of ways to put the 
rotisserie togther and when they make you 
follow just one way without showing you the 
overall problem the instructions become 
hard to follow in such a way as not to make 
mistakes* You lose feeling for the work. 
And not only that, it's very unlikely that 
they have told you the best way. 

(R. Pirsig, ZfiD and ihfi 6ci q£ 
OfliQCcyclfi dainifiDancs* p* 147) 



Ihfi Sasis £hallfiD3iD3 Iq leachfic EyaliiaiicQ 

Uhat Pirsig says about packaged instructions for 

handypersons could easily be applied to teacher evaluation. 

In spite of whatever good intentions exist to guide the 

practice, there is a logical tendency to prescribe and to 

limit diversity of approach in -favor of a particular way 

of evaluating teachers and teaching. But, educators often 

seem indifferent to the possible consequences of such 

managerial mechanisms as teacher evaluation. 

"There seems little need to offer an extensive 

justification for the existence of teacher evaluation. 

Among educators it is, in fact, one of the few areas in 

1 

which there is agreement." This sentence opens a book on 
teacher evaluation by Thomas McGreal that has been widely 



1 



4 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



distributed to approximately 75,000 administrators and 

2 

supervisors about the country* Bolton cited by tlcGreal in 

the opening paragraph of this book offers the common 

shibboleth that the purpose of eval uat ion is '*to safeguard 

and improve the quality of instruction received by 
3 

students • " 

But while teacher evaluation may promote teacher 

behavior which is oriented toward organizational goals, 

there is little evidence that it contributes to an 

4 

improvement in learning* In fact, it may well be an 
obstacle to the very ends it seeks to serve* McGreal's 
position is conservative at best* To hold that because 
educators agree on the need for teacher evaluation there is 
no need of further examination into its impact approximates 
a form of sophistry^ Furthermore, the assumption that 
teacher evaluation is to safeguard and improve instruction 
is one needing examination* 
Uendell Berry writess 

If critical intelligence has a use# it is 
to prevent the coagul<ition of opinion in 
social and political cliques* 

(U* Berry, DisciellDfi and dC2£) 

Uncritical acceptance of educational practices yields that 
very coagulation of opinion that troubles Berry* NcGreaTs 
assumption that wide acceptance obviates criticism 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



illustrates this coagulation of opinion^ ''Any field that 

seeks to make programmatic and conceptual headway must stand 

open to even quite basic criticism and change if is io me 

5 

more than a pretender to rat ional i t y ♦ " Because ue 

understand ihe degree to which our knowledge is bound 

6 

in particular paradigms, we are even more in need of a 

7 

critical evaluation of educational practices* 



ChalleDaes 1q laacheL EyalualiQn 

Critical challenges to the assumed contribution of 
teacher evaluation to learning come from at least three 
areas of scholarly work: 

1) a revisionist/Marxist literature which 
describes educational structures including 
teacher evaluation as mechanisms for reproducing 
the social and economic class distinctions 

of society; 

2) a literature on educational organizations 
and teaching which examines relationships 
between the management and service sectors; 

3) a literature on the factors which contribute to 
the devel opment of creativity* 



A brief summary of how each of the first two 
literatures can be construed as a challenge to teacher 
evaluation follows^ Then the literature on the educational and 
social/psychological factors relating to evaluation that 
promote or impede creativity in schooling will be explored* 
The author argues that the likely negative impact of 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



evaluation on creativity in the learning process provides a 
compelling challenge to proponents uho would expand the 
eval uat icn of teaching 

Ihfi BeyisifiDistZtJaLiiisi ChsllfiDSfi 

The common portrayal of teacher evaluation as 

a mechanism for safeguarding teaching and improving 

instruction has been implicitly challenged in various 

Marxist interpretations of schooling* In some cases, 

these challenges to the educational efficacy of teacher 

8 9 
evaluation are direct and in some cases implied* School 

organizations are an outgrowth of class structure in U#S» 

society and the control mechanisms in these organizations 

serve as aids in the to reproduction of class distinctions* 

Teacher evaluation under such a Marxist lens does safeguard 

instruction, but it does so in order to ensure that the 

needs of the dominant class are met* 

Uhen teachers are closely supervised, curricular or 

teacher decision-^making is relegated to the "how" and the 

"when*" The "what" — the choices that are made about what 

educational experiences are likely to result in the most 

favorable learning for a child — may be determined far from 

10 

the classroom when teachers are closely supervised. 
Teacher evaluation may "improve the quality of instruction" 
but it may do so by monitoring the implementation of the 



CREA I IVITY/EVALUATION 

state (or more commonly the district) curricula by the 

teaching force — an example of hegemony in action* 

One of the "striking features of teaching as an 

occupation is its inseparability from the organizational 

11 

context of the school*'* No longer do teachers sell 

their services to students independent of the state as they 

did in the days of the "itenerant" 18th century teacher* 

This monopoly held by school organizations over "teaching" 

is reinforced by such practices as accreditation, 

certification, and teacher evaluation* The latter provides 

for controls over teachers in order to assure that the aims 

and goals of the state are pursued* The concept of hegemony 

in Marxist literature holds that the goals of the state 

12 

mirror those of the powerful classes in society* 

It should be emphasized that this is no simple 

scenario* The means for serving the interests of a capital 

class are interwoven into the structure of the educational 

system as it ha^ evolved* For example, during the early 

years of the twentieth century, schools developed "tracking" 

in order to meet the needs of children* However, the needs 

of lower class children were conceptualized as different 

13 

from those of upper class children* Given different 
needs, a student's preparation was different* A 
superintendent at the turn of the century noted: 

Until very recently the schools have offered 

5 



8 



creati^;ity/e^;aluation 



equal opportunity for all to receive one 
kind of education, but what uill make them 
democratic is to provide opportunity for 
all to receive such education as uill fit 
them equally uell for their particular 
1 if e uorkf 

(Quoted by Boules SchQQliDa ID 3 

CQCEQCaie Sccieiiix Martin Carnoy (ed*) 

p. 46) 



The schools tonk up the institutional burden of 
defining for individual students the nature of their 
'^particular life uork*'* Socio-economic status colored that 
definiti^ heavily* Thus, class distinctions uerc 
institutionalized in the school system* 

A uay of increasing the probability that education uas 

meeting these class based needs of children uas to subject 

14 

teachers to various efficiency scales* In fact, uhile 

teacher evaluation uas conducted informally by school boards 

in the 19th century, it uas the development of rating scales 

during rise of the efficiency experts uhen teacher 

15 

evaluation by check list became common* Here uas a 
mechanism to socialize teachers, produce compliance, and 
orient the learning process touard externally defined ends* 

Apple provides another understanding of the dynamic 
whereby evaluation contributes to compliance* He suggests 
that a teaching workforce composed primarily of uomen 
resisted externa^ incursions into classroom* "Uomen teachers 
uere not passive in the face of the class and gender 



6 



3 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



16 

conditions^ • . . " Apple notes that teachers (largely 

women) via their political organization into unions "fought 

to have a much greater say in ♦•••and hou and by whom their 

17 

work was to be evaluated*'' Teacher evaluation 
mitigates the possibility that gender (female) might have an 
adverse impact on the program in the schools by subjecting 
the teachers to administrative (largely male) supervision* 

This revisionist/Marxist literature does issue a 
challenge to teacher evaluation* Teacher evaluation is not 
just a means of attempting to improve instruction* It is a 
means exerting control over the classroom in order to 
enforce a particular type of instruction with a particular 
type of curricular content* 

DcaaQizaliQQal ChallfiDafis 

The interdisciplinary study of organizations also leads 
to challenges to teacher evaluation. For example, evaluation 
is a mechanism by which supervisors inspect and control the 
work of workers* From an organizat inal perspective, this is 
a legitimate function of management* Evaluation ensures 
that there is a coordinated understanding of organizational 
goals and that work is aimed at accomplishing those goals 
with some modicum of efficiency* 

Researchers have noticed that in educational 
organizations the relationship between the institutional 

7 



10 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



goals of a school administration and the instructional 

activities of a classroom uere often loosely related^ This 

18 

phenomenon uas labeled "loose coupling^" Ueick, uho made 

this concept uell-knoun, did not define a loose 

connectedness between departments or organizational levels 

as detrimentals In fact, he suggested that loose coupling 

might be advantageous for the organization especially when 

the organization confronts a segmented and diverse 
19 

environment* Because organizational levels (teachers for 

example) are free to vary independently as a result of their 

loose coupling, more adjustment to local demands is 

possible* To teachers of a developmental persuasion, a 

loose coupling of classroom teacher and administrative 

office uas probably desirable. The attention of the 

teacher, freed from the demands of the district, uould turn 

more directly to the specific needs of students. 

Loose coupling became not just a descriptive term in 

the early phases of the present school reform movement. For 

some policy makers, loose coupling became something to root 

out of the structure of schools. Reform proponents needed 

to tighten the linkages between administration and 

classroom, a position most vividly dramatized by the 

creation of the principal or administrator as an 

20 

instructional leader. By requiring that the prinicpal be 

8 



t.i 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



extensively involved in the class and in the evaluation of 
teachers, the loose coupling uas iightenod* Getting control 
over the classroom and opening up the classroom door to 
administrative watchfulness has been one of the educational 
policy themes of the eighties* A significant means of 
attempting to obtain that co'^trol has been through teacher 
eval uat ion* 

but, oroanizat ional literature suggests that under 

certain conditions, tho particular u?nrk of an organization 

(its technology) needs to be protected from outside 

influence or the work will not be done as well as it 

21 

otherwise might. This insight has particular relevance 

for teacher evaluation* Uhen external forces intrude on 

the work f>rocess, the means carefully devised by the workers 

to attain ends are often upset* For those conducting 

the work of teaching , the increased inspection of the 

classroom may well have interrupted the relationship between 

22 

instructional means and instructional ends. More 
precisely, when the determination of appropriate 
instructional methods and ends is made outside the 
classroom, the capacity of teachers to develop appropriate 
means and ends for students is diminished* Furtherniore, if 
the work of teaching does not allow teachers to deternane 
appropriate means and ends for the Instruction of children 
at given moments in time, teaching becomes quite mechanical 

9 



12 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



in nature* 

Certain kinds of organizations perform certain kinds of 
work* One conclusion that can be gleaned from the 
organizations literature is that evaluation should be unique 
to different organizational types* The control mechanisms 
exerted over the technological level (the work level) need 
to be thought through carefully* Evaluation models drawn 
for other organizational types will not likely work well 
for education* 

Ihfi Challfioafi fees ihe UQck ql Cceaii^iiy 

In 1962 a Ruth Strang reported that "in a group 

of high school teachers, the correlation between ingenuity 

test scores and over all ratings of teaching ability by 

23 

principals or superiors was *38-" In other words, 

teachers who scored highly on variables one might associate 

with inventiver.sss, openness, flexibility and creativity did 

not receive correspondingly high evaluations from 

principals* Bridges found that teachers with "independent-- 

mindedness** as a trait were "generally antipathetic to the 
24 

principal * " 

Such studies are illustrative of a wide-ranging 

exploration of creativity in education that occupied 

25 

practitioners and researchers in the early sixties* 

10 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



Broadening definitions of school success as America became 

more pluralistic allowed educators to turn their attention 

to developing talents in children other than skill 

acquisition* One form of this movement took was to 

emphasize the need to identify kinds of creative talent in 

students and to nurture it* 

This theme of developing creativity in children 

provided much fodder for damaging critiques of educational 

practice* Holt's ybY CbildnfiD Esil, Postman and 

Ueingartner' s Isacbina 35 a Subv^fiESiye ficiiviiy and 

Silberman's Cnisis in ibfi ClassCflQED illustrate the temper of 

school criticism in this era* Similar critiques continue in 

the present reform era* Sizer's fclQcaCfiLs CsfflECClDiSg and 

Cuban's work on the prevalence of teacher centered 

instruction have some kinship with these earlier criticism* 

Sizer writes that ue should be "giving teachers and students 

26 

full room to take advantage of the variety among them****" 

Cuban writes that the "core repertoire of teachei — centered 

instructional practices finds students listening to 

lectures, completing worksheets or homework at their desks, 

reciting from textbooks, and seldom asking questions* Such 

work requires little application of concepts, little 

27 

imagination* and little serious inquiry*" 

Acontinuing criticism has been that schooling in 

11 



14 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



America stifles the natural learning impulses of youth* In 

brief, it is alleged that many public classrooms are not 

and have not been places uhere creative learning occurs* 

Uhile there are numerous reasons advanced to explain such an 

uninspired approach to learning, one contributing factor may 

logically be the disincentives that are given teachers via 

28 

the evaluation system* 

Before assessing the possible contribution of teacher 
evaluation to the diminishment of creative teaching, it is 
germane to suggest some of the general conditions that 
supt>ress creativity in schools* The literature on creative 
development from the early sixties provides some indication 
of hou expanded evaluation may hinder creativity- 

For example, scholars argued that the "success- 
orientation'* of American public education undermined 

29 

substantive challenge in school classrooms* Students are 

given only that uhich uill lead to success* Failure is 

viewed as a condition that uill lead to defeat and a 

poor self-image. Thus, teachers find encouragement in 

the system to create minimal challenges for students that 

have a high probability of leading to failure* 

In turn, much of the literature on the development of 

creativity underscores the essential element of risk taking 

30 

if the "neu" and •'different'* is to emerge. Indeed, from 
one philosophical point nf vieu, risk is associated with 

12 



'5 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



personal growth* Kierkegaard held that ''to dare is to lose 
one's footing momentari 1 y • To not dare is to lose oneself*" 
J» Adams writes: 

Most of us have grown up rewarded when 
we produce the ""right* answer and 

punished if we make a mistake and 

are taught»»».to avoid risk whenever 
possibl e • 

(James Adams, Conceptual Blockbusting, p. 53) 

In schools, children are sheltered from risk* This 

succesG-or ientat ion remains perhaps even more pervasive 

today than it was in the sixties* 

In fact, there is cause to argue that the tendency of 

the public school teacher to orchestrate success has grown. 

Some popular new teacher evaluation programs are oriented 

strongly toward the psychology that the learning experience 

must be geared to the developmental level of the child, i*e. 

guarantee the child success in small, digestible steps* 

Those readers familiar with formative evaluation programs 

will recognize this emphasis in such phrases as "learner 

readiness," "correct level of difficulty," and "checking for 
31 

understanding*" It is one thing to inform one*s knowledge 

of teaching with models of instruction from which one might 
32 

choose* However, it is another to push teachers toward 
programs that ensure that each learning experience is a 
successful one* As a consequence, the risk-taking character 

13 

16 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



associated uith the development of creative responses (on 

the part of teacher or child) is diminished^ 

Other inhibitors of creat ive devel opment suggested by 

proponents of creative teaching are peer-orientation which 

produces pressure for conformity, the push for on task 

behavior which diminishes exploratory questions, and the 

cultural labeling of schooling as work which diminishes the 

33 

playful aspect of creativity. 

Educational critics have held that such socially 
derived values delimit creative development because these 
values are transmitted from the larger society through the 
school. Scholars have not, however, paid much attention to 
the impacts of the institutionally derived practices that 
might influence creativity in schooling. Teacher evaluation 
is one of those practices. 

The work of Teresa Amabile tests the broad hypothesis 

that in addition to the personal characteristics of 

individuals there are social/psychological conditions that 

34 

impede or are conducive to creativity. Those social 

conditions that exert an external motivational force on the 

creative activity tend tc diminish value and outcome. 

Permissive conditions that release internal motivational 

35 

forces tend to yield a more creative outcome* 

Amabile treats evaluation appropriately as a form of 

14 



t7 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



external motivation* She notes that there is little 

•'empirical research on the effects of external evaluation on 
36 

creativity*" And what work there is does not 

distinguish between the type of task that is being 

evaluated, a necessary dimension in Amabile's construct* 

Accordingly, tuo types of tasks are defined: 

1) The algorithmic task is one in which the path to a 

37 

solution is ''clear and straightforward*" Some 
portion of the work that teachers do with children in 
schools would fit into this category. Children are asked 
to do straightforward tasks, algorithmic in nature — "complete 
the math excercises and check your answers;" "write a 
paragraph and underline the topic sentence*" Or, in 
November when the second grader is given a cut-out of a 
turkey and told to color the bird, the task is algorithmic — 
i*e*, get the crayons and color in between the lines* Many 
classroom tasks are externally imposed and algorithmic in 
nature • 

2) The heuristic task is one for which algorithms have 
38 

yet to be developed. The goals of the task may be clear or 
unclear but the pathway to its solution is not. "Urite a 
poem;" "design your own Utopian society." Or, in November when 
the second grader is given a pile of found objects and told 
to create a three dimensional piece thai resembles a turkey, 
the task is heuristic* Many tasks are externally imposed 

15 



»8 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



but heuristic in nature* 

Amabile presents research evidence from IlcGrau 
supporting the notion that evaluation or extrinsic 

39 

motivation "enhances performance on algorithimic tasks/' 

There is also evidence holding that uhen the task is 

heuristic, extrinsic motivation diminishes the creative 

performance* In a number of experiments, Amabile has 

created experimental setting^* in which subjects produced 

"works of art'* (often collages) under different conditions, 

i»e» evaluation conditions which ranged from an experimental 

group given no clue that the work would be judged, to 

another group expecting an evaluation of technical merit, to 

a third group expecting an evaluation of creative worth* 

For the most part, work done in these types of experimental 

settings was judged (by judges with interrater reliability) 

as more creative when there is no expectation of evaluation* 

Thus, for heuristic tasks, the expectation of evaluation 

40 

resulted in less creative output* 

Amabile reports a related strand of research examining 

the impact of reward on intrinsic motivation* Since the 

manipulation of rewards to motivate student work habits has 

41 

gained much credence in recent years, this research 
demands serious attention* Amabile finds that the offering 
of a reward tends to decrease intrinsic interest in the 

16 



19 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



task^ The task becomes perceived of not as something 
intrinsically worth pursuit but as an end to the rewards 
Engagement in the activity diminishes because the activity 
has been devalued* It should be noted that teachers are 
encouraged utilize some clear and obvious method of manipulating 
rewards so that students know exactly what is and is not 
appropriate behavior* 

One cannot help but conclude that if even a small 
portion of Amabile^s work proves general izabl e to 
educational settings the grouinci use of external evaluation 
uill diminish creativity in the teacher and in the 
classroom* There is no question that some portion of 
classroom teaching needs to present children with 
algorithmic tasks* Cognitive growth and mastery requires 
that some work uill lead students toward knoun solutions 
along knoun solution paths* In Bloom's taxonomy, these 
tasks are characterized by the tuo lesser levels of 
cognition: comprehension, application* But much o^ teaching 
and learning needs to be heuristic if children are to 
develop those very qualities of problem solving and 
creativity currently in high demand* 

To the degree that schools increase the evaluation of 
instruction, they push teachers and children toward a 
learning dynamic that is algorithmic in nature. There are 
consequences implied in such a direction* Learning becomes 

17 



20 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



work} there is little joy in the process since the discovery 

factor has been removed; all students get to the desired 

ends in quite similar uays thus enforcing a conformity that 

is far from natural or probably healthy; significant 

portions of the student population become disenchanted uith 

school; and probably most significantly, students are not 

provided uith abstract models by uhich they may reflect 

critically on their world* 

One can not lay the shortcomings of education upon the 

shoulders of teacher evaluation* However, because it is an 

entrenched practice, there is a need to know what happens to 

different kinds of t each ing as a result of eval uat ion ♦ The 

growing recognition that teachers must be part of the 

42 

decision-^making process and must be empowered may be the 
harbinger of a new collaborate organizational structure 
where evaluation is used with discretion* There is even a 
need to know if anything awful might happen to teaching 
if evaluation were discarded in the cases of engaged, 
competent, and successful teachers* 

"To help somebody learn to think," speaks Grady 
Cassidy, a character in Gwaltney^s Ihe DiSSfiDtecSx^is to 
lose your power to make that person a knife of your own 
wilK" Teacher evaluation may have the ultimate purpose of 
forcing teachers to socialize students in particular ways, 

18 



21 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 

not to help students "learn to think." Yet, if Americans 

truly uant public education to help all students learn to 

think, ue need to do something differently than ue are 
43 

doing. One action ue can *!?Me is to examine the 
consequences of school structure. 



19 

22 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



FOOTNOTES 



1 Thomas McGreal , SilCCfiiSfill leachfiC EyaliiailDDa 
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: 
Al exandria, Virgin? a, 1983: vi i 

2 Officials at the Association for Supervision and 
Curriculum Development extimate that since 1983 about 75,000 
copies of McGreaTs book have been disseminated to school 
admini st rat ors and curriculum directors* To put this number 
in some perspective, there are around 15,000 school 
districts large and small in the United States, 

3 Op. Cit., p. vii 

4 Stal lings and Krasavage report weak effects of clinical 
supervision on instructional practice (1985); Smith (1986) 
and Slavin (1987) find no documentation that clinical 
supervision, a popular formative teacher evaluation model, 
improves instructional practices of teachers. 

5 Stephen Toulmin, bumaD UDdfiCSiaDdiDSi Ibfi Cfllleciii^e US£ 
and Ei^aluailDD fl£ CDDCfieis^ Princeton, NJ: Princeton 
University Press, 1972:84. 

6 Thomas Kuhn, Ihe SiCilciilCfi d£ ScifiDiifij: Bfii^QluiiflDSa 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. 

7 Uilliam Foster,Eai:adia(DS and EcDmisesi blew fiEECDaches io 
EdilcaiiDDal fidmiDlsicaiiflOx Buffalo, Neu York: Prometheus 
Books, 1986. 

8 Michael Apple, leSuhfiCS aod IfiJltsi 6 Eflliiical E£DDD[Dil d£ 
Class aod GeodfiC Belaiions id EdilcatiODx Neu York: Rout ledge 
and Kegan Paul , 1986* 

9 A great number of Marxist writers exploring education 
strike an indirect blou against teacher evaluation. Michael 
Katz, ClasSx Biiceauccac^x and SchflolSx Neu York: Praeger 
Publishers, 1972; Martin Carnoy, SchODliDa in a CflCEQCaifi 
SflCifityx Neu York: David McKay, 1972; Samuel Boules and 
Herbert Gintis, SchODliDa in CaEiialist ^[DfiCicax Neu York: 
Basic Books, 1976; P. Bourdieu and J.C. Passeron, 
BfiECDdiiciiflD in EdiicatiiiDx Socifiiy and Ciiliiicfix Beverly 
Hills, CA: Sage, 1977. 



20 



^3 



C REAT I V I T Y/ E V ALUAT I ON 



10 There are other interpretations which provide indirect 
understandings of the reasons and consequences of close 
teacher supervision* David Tyack' s Qd£ BfiSi SiiSifilDx and 
Raymond Callahan's EdliCaiiDD and ifafi Culi d£ E£fi£i£D£y.L are 
excellent examples of historiographies that can be used to 
place teacher evaluation within the ideological frameworks 
that shaped educational change* 

11 Dan Lortie, "Observations on Teaching as Uork/* in R. 
Travers (ed.) SfiCDDd Baodhflak af BfiSfiacch ao l£3£hiD3x Rand 
McNally, 1973:474-497* 

12 See Michael Apple, IfischfiCS and IfiKiSx ^or a close 
examination of how class and state functions interact* 

13 Samuel Bowles, "Unequal Education anri the Reproduction 
of the Social Division of Labor^" in Carnoy (ed), SchaaliDS 
in a Caceacaifi Sa£ifiii:xl977:46* 

14 See Callahan, Educaiiao and ihfi Culi q£ E££i£i£D£Yxi962» 

15 lbid± 

16 Michael Apple, l£5;£ufiC5 and IfiiSiSx P* 75* 

17 Ibid, P- 76- 

18 Karl Ueick, '^Educational Organizations as Loosely 
Coupled Systems," Administration Science Quarterly, ^^ol . 21, 
March, 1976:1-19. 

19 Ihidx P* 6* See also R.B. Glassman, "Persistence and 
Loose Coupling in Living Systems," Behavorial Science, No. 
18, 1973:83-98* 

20 The position that effective schools are characterized by 
effective instructional leaders is taken by Ronald Edmunds 
in "Programs of School Improvement: An Overview," in 
Educational Leadership, December, 1982:4-11* For a 
countering view of the role of the principal as the 
instructional leader see Rallis and Highsmith, "The Myth of 
the Great Principal," Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1986:300- 
304* 

21 James D* Thompson, Qcaanizaiians in ficliaDx New York: 
McGrau-Hil 1 , 1967* 

22 An example of the negative impact resulting from the 
close scrutiny of a teacher's competence is reported in a 



21 



?4 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



study entitled "The Texas Teacher Test," by L* Shephard and 
A* Kreitzer in Educational Researcher, Vo* 16, No* 6, Aug*- 
Sept*, 1987:22-31 ♦ 

23 Ruth Strang, "Manifestations of Creativity in 
Teaching," Educational Horizons, Summer, Vol XL, No. 4, 
1962. 

24 Eduin Bridges, "Teacher Participation in Decision- 
Making," Administrators Notebook, Vol* 12, No* 9, 1964. 

25 See for example Calvin Taylor, Ccfiaiiiifiiili EcQflLfiSS and 
EQifiDiialx Neu York: McGrau-Hill, 1964. 

26 Theodore Sizer, HocaCfilS CQCDECCCDISfix Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin Co., 1984:214. 

27 Larry Cuban, *Tersistent Instruction: Another Look at 
Constancy in the Classroom," Phi Delta Kappan, Sept., 1986: 
7-11- 

28 Some would argue that teachers dismiss the teacher 
evaluation systems as an empty ritual. However, given the 
increased administrative attention to evaluation the 
inconsequential nature of teacher evaluation can no 
longer be assumed. 

29 Calvin Taylor, Ccfiaiiv^^iiMi EcQSLfiSS aod EotfiDiialx 
P» 98. 

30 See for example James Adams, CQDCfiEiyal BlQCkbusilDflx 
San Francisco: U»H. Freeman and Company, 1974. 

31 A review of the Hunter Model or the Direct/Explicit 
Tecahing Model will provide many examples of the degree to 
which the success-orientation guides approved contemporary 
pedagogy. 

32 "Uhat's Noteworthy on Teaching," a recent publication 
from the Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory, lists 
seven models of instruction: 1) Learning to Learn} 2) Active 
Mathematics Teaching; 3) Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: 
4) Explicit Teaching; 5) the 4Mat Model; 6) The Hunter 
Model; and 7) Mastery Learning. 

33 Calvin Taylor, Ccfiatiii^itMi Ecoacfiss and EQifiDiialA 
pps* 99-102. 



22 



?5 



CREATIVITY/EVALUATION 



34 Teresa Amabile, Ihfi Social EsYChfllDax d£ CcsaiiyiiYx Neu 
York? Springer-Verlag, 1983:3« 

35 Ihidx P» 5. 

36 Ihidx P« ICO. 

37 Ibidx P* 33. 

38 Ihidx P« 33. 

39 Ihidx P* 103. 

40 Ihidx PPs. 103-117. Amabile operat ional izes the concept 
of creativity uith the following definition: "A responses 
will be judged creative to the extent that a) it is boht a 
novel and appropriate^* usef ul » correct or valuable to the 
task at hand, and b) xhe task is heuristic rather than 
algorithmic." (p. 33) 

41 Lee Canter's fisssciiys DisciEliQSx a popular approach to 
pupil management and control, illustrates this point. 

42 Interest in reversing the conception of the teacher's 
role as the mechanical engineer of a pre-determined 
classroom experience appears in reports such as the Homes 
Group Report and the Carfu^gie Commission Report on Teaching. 
See also B. Joyce and B. Shouers, "Pouer In Staff 
Development Through Research on Training/' Alexandria, Kffiii 
ASCD, 1983. This paper presents a strong argument for 
empowerment through knowledge and skill acquisition- 

43 See for example Susan Ohanian' 5 article on basil readers 
in The Atlantic, Sept., ?9C:. In the article, Ohanian 
writes that textbook publishers "tend to cut and trim and 
simplify, to tame and domesticate what is powerful, florid, 
and wild in the way writers use language." The same may 
well be true for formative teacher evaluation programs. 



23 

26