824331
editorial2019
JTEXXX10.1177/0022487118824331Journal of Teacher EducationRichmond et al.
Editorial
Assessment and the Future of
Teacher Education
Gail Richmond1, María del Carmen Salazar2,
and Nathan Jones3
It is always a challenge to decide how to select manuscripts
to appear together in a hard copy issue of the Journal of
Teacher Education, especially when many have already
appeared online. For the second issue in our current volume,
we chose to bring together a set of papers because, although
they differ in grain size and specific focus, they address a
matter which has broad reach and at the same time is situated
at the heart of discussion and debate about teacher and pro-
gram quality. It is the issue of assessment.
The papers in this issue all represent efforts to address a
persistent challenge facing teacher education—how do we
develop assessments that are informative, scalable, and
accepted by the majority of experts in the field. Identifying
common approaches to assessment has rarely been met with
unbridled enthusiasm and agreement but has instead been
met with skepticism, debate, and frustration. In addition,
there are those who are suspicious that there can ever be
assessment tools developed which are independent enough
from specific contextual variables that they can be imple-
mented meaningfully at sufficient scale and thus provide
guidance which diverse stakeholders can trust and imple-
ment confidently. Then, there are those who challenge
assessments that are purportedly objective and neutral and
thus perceived as scalable (Salazar, 2018). Critics argue that
assessments are value statements that are based on the per-
spectives of the developers of such assessments (Flynn,
2015; Salazar, 2018). When accreditation agencies prioritize
certain indices of teacher quality (e.g., dispositions, core
practices) and issues of scalability and value-neutrality are
ignored, those playing leadership roles in teacher preparation
programs may find themselves without the necessary time,
resources, and expertise to respond thoughtfully to external
demands. The result may be the cobbling together of assess-
ments that are not useful for evaluative or learning purposes
and may not reflect programmatic or institutional values.
In this editorial, we want to build upon some of these
dilemmas as well as related ideas we presented in an earlier
editorial (Bartell, Floden, & Richmond, 2018). We also want
to challenge some of the notions upon which tools and asser-
tions about assessment are often built. We propose that four
questions ought to be asked to carefully examine the assess-
ment of teaching and teacher preparation programs: Why?
What? Who? and How?
Journal of Teacher Education
2019, Vol. 70(2) 86­–89
© 2019 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022487118824331
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118824331
journals.sagepub.com/home/jte
Why
Why do we need to assess? Authors of the articles in this
issue discuss a variety of goals for teacher and program
assessment. These include improving teacher quality and
demonstrating impact on student outcomes, accreditation,
program improvement, self-reflection, and social justice–
centered instruction.
Scholars also have asserted that the goal of assessment
should be to address issues that challenge the nation such as
global competition, college and career readiness, and aca-
demic achievement gaps (Darling-Hammond, 2015; Wagner,
2014). We also must find ways to use data in powerful ways
to support the development of excellent, equity-driven teach-
ers who advance student learning and are committed to and
skilled in addressing problems of social justice. Moreover,
we must not lose sight of the fact that assessment should not
be used to assimilate children but rather to be responsive to,
sustain, and revitalize (Ladson-Billings, 2014; McCarty &
Lee, 2014; Paris, 2012) their cultural resources while adding
resources that are prized in U.S. society. We assess so that the
results are meaningful and empowering for every member of
the educational community.
One obvious conclusion is that assessment is complex and
serves many different purposes. And these different purposes
should determine not only the kind of data which are col-
lected, but the ways these data are analyzed, used, and shared
with others.
What
What should we assess? Goe, Bell, and Little (2008) state,
“What is measured is a reflection of what is valued, and as a
corollary, what is measured is valued” (p. 4). What is mea-
sured is of utmost importance in an assessment tool. The
1
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
2
University of Denver, CO, USA
3
Boston University, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gail Richmond, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, Room 319, East
Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Email: gailr@msu.edu
Richmond et al. 87
articles in this edition assess dispositions, knowledge, and
skills that are said to improve teaching and learning. What
knowledge, dispositions, and skills should be assessed?
There are many sources used to answer this question, includ-
ing, but not limited to, standards, accreditation requirements,
nationally implemented classroom observation tools, theory
and research, practice, and personal experience. Many
researchers have offered frameworks for understanding what
teachers should know and be able to do. Darling-Hammond
(2012) proposes one set of knowledge and skills, composed
of the following understand content concepts; connect con-
tent to prior knowledge and experiences; scaffold learning;
facilitate standards-based and outcome-based instruction;
provide students with opportunities to apply knowledge and
master content; assess student learning, make instructional
adjustments, and support students in monitoring their own
learning; give explicit feedback; and manage student behav-
ior and classroom routines. Other researchers have nomi-
nated that the field of teaching can be improved through a
tight focus on a set of “high-leverage” or “core” practices
that cut across grades, subjects, and student populations
(e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009; Forzani, 2014; Grossman,
Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; McDonald, Kazemi, &
Kavanagh, 2013). It should be noted, however, that some
have pointed out the danger of such a focus leading to the
privileging of subject matter over practices which address
issues of social justice and cultural responsivity (Philip et al.,
2018; Richmond, Bartell, Floden, & Petchauer, 2017).
Such generic knowledge and skills are often perceived as
objective and neutral; these are often meant to promote effec-
tive teaching for all students. But others have challenged this
notion. Mirra, Garcia, and Morrell (2015), for example,
argue that neutral assessment tools may serve to marginalize
certain populations, “What is seen as objective, in fact, rep-
resents the experience of those who possess more societal
power, while the experiences of marginalized others are
downplayed or outright ignored” (p. 17). Flynn (2015) repu-
diates notions of neutrality as false promises, myth-making,
and bamboozling. He argues, “The very creation of a tool
happens in a context with a certain set of assumptions, inten-
tions, and repercussions (both intended and unintended)” (p.
212). In reality, “Most of the protocols for measuring perfor-
mance give inadequate attention to teaching practices, gener-
ally called, ‘culturally responsive pedagogy’ or CRP, any
high-stakes teaching evaluation is likely−unintentionally and
ironically−to fail the very students most in need of highly
effective teaching” (Hawley & Irvine, 2011, p. 1). Such prac-
tice situates the dominant culture at the center of assessment;
this results in the systemic marginalization of those who are
“othered” (Salazar, 2018).
The effort to identify neutral, objective measures also
may mask epistemological differences surrounding what
counts as effective teaching and learning. Jones and Brownell
(2014) document how commonly used observation tools,
such as the Framework for Teaching, may not reflect the
kinds of instructional practices that research indicates bene-
fits students with disabilities. In her article in this issue, Nava
challenges notions of objectivity and neutrality by reflecting
the values and needs of diverse learners. She states that many
classroom observation assessment tools exclude equity,
humanizing pedagogy, and social justice and, instead,
describes the development of content-specific observation
rubrics that embody program values of equity and humaniz-
ing pedagogy.
The issue of what data matter most raises the question of
the extent to which those same data do or should reflect pro-
gram or institutional values and mission (e.g., social justice,
culturally responsive pedagogy) and of whether value-neu-
tral measures are to be preferred or are even possible. And
although the paper by Vagi, Pivovarova, and Barnard in this
issue suggest greater retention of teachers who have higher
observational scores while in their teacher preparation pro-
grams, there remains the question of the extent to which such
measures reflect the mission, values, or focus of the program
in which they are being used. Indeed, it has been argued that
it is unlikely that any value-neutral measures of teacher
effectiveness are possible to create (e.g., Caughlan & Jiang,
2014).
The field will continue to grapple with the question of
what should be assessed, and we will continue to engage in
context-reduced and context-responsive approaches to
assessment. There is a need for additional research on the
impact of each of these approaches on teaching and learning
and on job satisfaction and retention.
Who
By “who,” we mean “Who should be developing and admin-
istering assessments; who should be interpreting and com-
municating data gleaned from these assessments; and for
whom are these assessments meaningful?” The Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009) empha-
sizes the importance of including a range of stakeholders in
teacher assessment such as “parents, students, teachers,
school leaders, teacher unions, educational administrators
and policy makers in the development and implementation
of teacher evaluation and assessment processes” (p. 4).
Salazar and Lerner (2019) emphasize the importance of
including students and parents in assessment, “particularly
those whose survival depends on education to be the greatest
equalizer, as promised by Horace Mann” (p. 144). Although
scholars and practitioners encourage an inclusive approach
to who should be involved in assessment, it is important to
ask the question: Who is assessment meaningful for? It is
meaningful for everyone involved in the educational com-
munity, but especially for those who are systematically left
behind. The language that we use to describe the participants
in assessment matters, for example, the word “stakeholder”
implies a language of transaction and return on investment,
whereas the word “community” denotes a language of
88 Journal of Teacher Education 70(2)
collaboration and meaning-making. The articles in this issue
use a variety of terms to describe the assessment community
and assert that assessment is meaningful for students, teach-
ers, policy makers, programs, and the field. Ultimately,
assessment is meaningful when participants can use the
results in powerful ways to improve teaching and learning.
Concomitantly, who is developing the assessments matters?
This is not only a matter of considering at the broadest level
the knowledge and skills needed for assessment develop-
ment. Because assessment developers advance notions of
teaching that are based on their own assumptions of quality
and worth (Flynn, 2015), it is important that those who
develop assessments of teacher and program quality are
inclusive of, as well as representative of, the communities
these assessments will serve (Salazar & Lerner, 2019).
How
How should we assess? Researchers in the K-12 evaluation
field have written much about lessons learned concerning the
complex and thorny issues that emerge in trying to use mea-
surement tools for purposes other than those for which they
were designed. Classroom-based observation is the most
widely used type of tool to measure teacher effectiveness
(Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009). Since 2013, all states have
required classroom observation as a component of their state
teacher evaluation system (Hull, 2013). Most all of the obser-
vation tools used in teacher evaluation were developed for
use in research settings, and we should not assume that they
will function in similar ways in the context of teacher educa-
tion. We have learned, for example, that observation scores
are often subject to bias and can be sensitive to a variety of
contextual factors (Garrett & Steinberg, 2015; Gill, Shoji,
Coen, & Place, 2016; Steinberg & Garrett, 2016; Whitehurst,
Chingos, & Lindquist, 2014). And school and building
administrators commonly struggle to use observation sys-
tems in the ways they were trained (Bell et al., 2013; Bell,
Jones, Qi, & Lewis, 2018; Donaldson & Woulfin, 2018).
Administrators also approach the observation process in dif-
ferent ways and with different priorities than raters would in
the context of a research study—they are not just focused on
creating “reliable” scores but are focused on managing rela-
tionships with employees where a central goal is helping
their staff improve. These findings have implications for how
we think about the use of these tools in preservice settings.
How can those who should be using these tools be prepared
to understand the purpose for which particular tools were
developed and to use tools and to apply scores in valid,
appropriate ways?
The articles in this volume address challenges they face in
teacher and program assessment including pressure to adapt
rigorous and high-stakes performance-based assessments;
data deficiencies; measurement error; a changing policy
landscape; and dealing with unintended consequences.
Salazar and Lerner (2019) encourage scholars and prac-
titioners to “move beyond our self-imposed boundaries”
(p. 144) when considering teacher assessment. They and
other scholars (e.g., Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2015)
advocate for communal and egalitarian strategies to teacher
assessment. These include engaging students and commu-
nities in developing assessment tools; assessing teacher
impact on students’ full potential (e.g., academic, cultural
competence, transformative capacities); and using alterna-
tive terms for teacher assessment such as “teaching and
learning collectivo” or “teacher and student development”
to drive efforts for collaboration and support (Salazar &
Lerner, 2019, p. 145).
Conclusion
Collectively, the papers in this issue highlight the central role
of measurement in teacher preparation and development and
appear at an interesting time; the ground has shifted in the
K-12 evaluation space, with less enthusiasm for the kinds of
rigorous, systematic efforts to connect teachers to the perfor-
mance of their students. Although policies around evalua-
tions are still on the books, policy makers, and practitioners
seem to be moving away from the idea of using observation
data for making decisions about promotion and tenure; class-
room observations are increasingly seen as a source of infor-
mation to guide teacher development.
Looking from this specific set of papers to the broader set
of issues raised about assessment within teacher education,
we suggest that there are three principal “takeaways” or
ideas. The first of these is that this kind of work, that is, artic-
ulated efforts to build a rigorous and robust set of measure-
ment tools in teacher education, takes time to develop,
substantial efforts across many researchers, and sufficient
funding to support large-scale studies of the kind that have
allowed measurement work on teacher quality to grow in the
K-12 literature.
The second takeaway is that we should be focusing our
energies on two goals simultaneously—developing tools
which are context responsive and developing a common
language for communicating “lessons learned” from the
use of these tools and for the purposes of decision
making.
The third and final takeaway is that time and resources
demanded for such work should be set against a sense of
great urgency, as we see greater and greater opportunity gaps
between those from more privileged communities and those
from communities that have the most to gain from the
informed, powerful use of data and who have historically
been the least advantaged by the educational system.
References
Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the
challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
60(5), 497-511.
Bartell, T., Floden, R., & Richmond, G. (2018). What data and mea-
sures should inform teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher
Education, 69(5), 426-428.
Richmond et al. 89
Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., Lewis, J. M., Qi, Y., Liu, S., & McLeod,
M. (2013). Understanding consequential assessment systems
of teaching: Year 1 final report. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles
Unified School District.
Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., Qi, Y., & Lewis, J. M. (2018). Strategies for
assessing classroom teaching: Examining administrator thinking
as validity evidence. Educational Assessment, 23(4), 229-249.
Caughlan, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Observation and teacher
quality: Critical analysis of observational instruments
in preservice teacher performance assessment. Journal
of Teacher Education, 65(5), 375-388. doi:10.1177/
0022487114541546
Croft, S. J., Roberts, M. A., & Stenhouse, V. L. (2015). The per-
fect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher
evaluation. Social Justice, 42, 70-92.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system
for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications
/creating-comprehensive-system-evaluating-and-supporting
-effective-teaching.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How
America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. (2018). From tinkering to going
“rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new
teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 40(4), 531-556.
Flynn, J. E. (2015). Racing the unconsidered: Considering white-
ness, rubrics, and the function of oppression. In M. Tenam-
Zemach & J. E. Flynn (Eds.), Rubric nation: Critical inquiries
on the impact of rubrics in education (pp. 201-221). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “prac-
tice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal
of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357-368.
Garrett, R., & Steinberg, M. P. (2015). Examining teacher effective-
ness using classroom observation scores: Evidence from the
randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 224-242.
Gill, B., Shoji, M., Coen, T., & Place, K. (2016). The content, pre-
dictive power, and potential bias in five widely used teacher
observation instruments (REL 2017–191). Washington, DC:
US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluat-
ing teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521228.pdf
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009).
Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.
Hawley, W. D., & Irvine, J. J. (2011, December). The teaching
evaluation gap: Why students’ cultural identities hold the key.
Education Week, 31, 30-31.
Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are mea-
suring teacher performance. Alexandria, VA: National School
Boards Association.
Jones, N. D., & Brownell, M. T. (2014). Examining the use of class-
room observations in the evaluation of special education teach-
ers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112-124.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0:
A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluat-
ing teacher effectiveness. National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext
/ED543776.pdf
McCarty, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/
revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous education sovereignty.
Harvard Educational Review, 8(4), 101-124.
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core prac-
tices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common
language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(5), 378-386.
Mirra, N., Garcia, A., & Morrell, E. (2015). Doing youth participa-
tory action research: Transforming inquiry with researchers,
educators, and students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009).
Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples
of country practices. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/
education/school/44568106.pdf
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change
in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher,
41(3), 93-97.
Philip, T. M., Souto-Manning, M., Anderson, L., Horn, I. J., Carter
Andrews, D., Stillman, J., & Varghese, M. (2018). Making
justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How the
increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022487118798324
Richmond, G., Bartell, T., Floden, R., & Petchauer, E. (2017). Core
teaching practices: Addressing both social justice and academic
subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(5), 432-434.
Salazar, M. (2018). Interrogating teacher evaluation: Unveiling
whiteness as the normative center and moving the margins.
Journal of Teacher Education, 69(5), 463-476.
Salazar, M., & Lerner, J. (2019). Teacher evaluation as culture:
A framework for equitable and excellent teaching. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Steinberg, M. P., & Garrett, R. (2016). Classroom composition and
measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation
scores really measure? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 38(2), 293-317.
Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Why even our best
schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need-
and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Whitehurst, G., Chingos, M., & Lindquist, K. (2014). Evaluating
teachers with classroom observations: Lessons learned in four
districts. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy
at Brookings.