Teacher Evaluation Policy Series | Student Voice in the Teacher Evaluation Process: A lost opportunity by Seyma Dagistan-Terzi

This is the third in our series on teacher evaluation policy. Teacher evaluation has been a major feature of education policy reform in the United States during the past ten years. The triumvirate of Race to the Top (2009) funding competition, the No Child Left Behind waivers (2011), and the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) made teacher evaluation central to education reform over the past decade. This series will consider emerging areas of growth in teacher evaluation policy. In the two-part discussion “Deweaponizing teacher evaluation: Using teacher evaluation for growth,” Sarah Hairston and a co-developer of the largest teacher evaluation system in the state of Missouri looked at the snares of teacher evaluations (part one) and discussed how to construct teacher evaluations towards a growth model (part two). Here, in “Student Voice in the Teacher Evaluation Process – A lost opportunity” Seyma Dagistan considers the case of Massachusetts in the attempt to incorporate student voice in teacher evaluation. In “Responsible Teachers: Teacher Evaluation in Finland,” Hansol Woo looks into the Finnish model of teacher evaluation where teachers evaluate their own progress. These articles will consider why we evaluate teachers and who is best positioned to do so. We invite you to join the discussion by leaving a comment or submitting an essay of your own.

The voices of students are still missing in teacher evaluations in the U.S. While 32 states and the District of Columbia allow^[1] or require^[2] the use of student feedback in teacher evaluations (Doherty & Jacobs, 2015), the results of these evaluations are at risk of being ignored and misinterpreted. This is due to the fact that students are not allowed the chance to collaborate during the analysis phase of evaluation. Student participation in the process of teacher evaluation is equally valuable, if not more, than the collection of feedback alone. Indeed, student “voice” refers to “not simply the opportunity to communicate ideas and opinions” but rather, “having the power to influence change” in partnership with peers and adults (West, 2004). When students’ voices are reduced to data points, as in the case of teacher evaluations, students are disempowered and teachers miss out on the opportunity to build better relationships with their students.

Massachusetts is one of the states that mandate the use of student surveys in teacher evaluations. However, students are not involved with the analysis of the survey results. Even though student feedback for teachers is a development worth celebrating, students not having the opportunity to interpret the survey results in collaborative ways (e.g. in school-wide assemblies) is a lost opportunity as it restrains students’ abilities to be authentically engaged. The lack of attention given to collaboration signals that the value and voices of adults are being prioritized (Bragg, 2007). Surveying students, and interpreting their responses without the students undermine the very point of increasing student voice.

Surprisingly, the student feedback policy process in Massachusetts started off with a collaborative intent: a student-led organization devised, administered, and interpreted the student feedback surveys of teachers in partnership with adults. In the following paragraphs, I summarize what that student-led organization accomplished. Later, I explain how the Massachusetts Department of Education intentionally or unintentionally dissolved the collaborative nuance of action in student feedback policies. I use the case of Massachusetts to highlight the importance of student feedback in teacher evaluations and to draw attention to the collaborative nuances of action that must take place for authentic student voice efforts. 

The Case of Massachusetts

The Boston Student Advisory Council (BSAC), is a student-led, adult-supported organizing group, originally founded in the 1970s around the issue of desegregation. In 2007-2008, BSAC partnered with the interim superintendent of the Boston Public Schools (BPS), and president of the Boston Teachers Union to devise a pilot study in a Boston public high school. The goal of the pilot study was to evaluate teachers using the student surveys BSAC developed. The BSAC believed that student feedback would provide teachers the opportunity to hear from students, the intended beneficiaries of instruction. The student surveys were designed to provide teachers with anonymous feedback on classroom management and instruction. BSAC worked collaboratively with the school administrative support offices to assist with the compilation of “schoolwide, subject, and individual teacher reports” (BSAC, 2013, p. 155). Teachers were provided individual reports with summaries of the feedback. Students analyzed the results of the survey and presented their findings at a schoolwide professional development session where “teachers and administrators heard firsthand from students about their evaluation process. Because students led the professional development session, they were able to ask follow-up questions and understand their teachers’ interpretation of the responses.” (BSAC, 2013, p. 155). Teachers reported that student feedback changed their approaches in classroom instruction (Youth on Board, 2013).

As the intended beneficiaries of teacher instruction, students have unique perspectives that they can share with teachers, perspectives that no other teacher evaluation measure can offer.

In 2009, based on the feedback they received, the Boston Student Advisory Council devised a Student to Teacher Constructive Feedback Form that included a section where students self-evaluate their own learning before evaluating their teachers’ classroom management and instruction practices. During the same year, The Boston Student Advisory Council developed a Student to Teacher Constructive Feedback policy proposal that passed on July 28, 2011, after three years of negotiation and lobbying. BSAC’s records indicate that the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education “required all teachers to be evaluated by their students in the state of Massachusetts” (Youth on Board, 2013). BSAC’s accomplishment shows that authentic student voice efforts can improve educational experiences for students as well as teachers through collaboration.

As of 2019, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) offers revised surveys of student feedback, still requiring all districts to administer student feedback surveys. The problem, however, is that the DESE removed all the collaborative nuances from the Student to Teacher Constructive Feedback Form and did not include any mention of how the surveys were first administered which was in partnership with students. Hence, student feedback surveys are reduced to mere data points. The lack of importance given to collaboration is also apparent in the language used in the revised surveys. While the Student to Teacher Constructive Feedback Form had items that placed value on student-teacher collaboration (i.e. “My teacher helps me set goals for this class.”; “The students in this class contribute to decisions such as *rules, *types of tests, *seating arrangement, *other”), the DESE Model Feedback Instruments have no items that include collaborative nuances. In fact, the positioning of students is quite clear on the DESE Model Feedback Instruments & Administration Protocols website where the shortened versions of student feedback surveys are promoted as “Interested in taking a quick temperature of your students?” (DESE Model Feedback Instruments & Administration Protocols, 2019). BSAC’s accomplishment is overshadowed by the lack of emphasis on the collaborative opportunities in which students can be involved. This negates the essence of student voice initiatives (Mansfield, Welton, and Halx, 2018; Fielding, 2001).

Benefits of Using Student Surveys in Teacher Evaluations

As the intended beneficiaries of teacher instruction, students have unique perspectives that they can share with teachers, perspectives that no other teacher evaluation measure can offer. Moreover, students “interact with teachers the most” (Geiger, & Amrein-Beardsley, 2019, p. 4) as the target population of learning and instruction in schools and can provide in-depth feedback. In fact, teachers reported that they have a better understanding of student learning and that student feedback provided them with the opportunity to refine certain teaching practices to better meet the needs of students (BSAC, 2012; Sanford, 2013). Furthermore, incorporating student feedback as one of the teacher evaluation measures provides a better model for predicting student achievement. A 2012 project by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reported that “combining observation scores, student feedback, and student achievement gains were better than graduate degrees or years of teaching experience at predicting a teacher’s student achievement gains with another group of students on the state tests” (Kane & Staiger, 2012, p. 2). Thus, student feedback surveys can provide teachers with useful feedback and help better predict student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012; Follman, 1992; LaFee, 2014).

In order to create and promote structures that can sustain an excellent supply of well-prepared teachers, Darling-Hammond affirms that “strong professional development systems” and collaborative “career development approaches that can help spread expertise” are necessary (2013, p. 3). With the inclusion of student surveys, teacher evaluation systems can provide teachers the opportunities to receive useful feedback that prompts collaborative learning environments. Dretzke and Sheldon’s study conducted in school districts in Minnesota is one example that shows how both principals and teachers see the value student feedback surveys can bring “for the purpose of assigning a rating to a teacher’s performance and for identifying areas where a teacher could benefit from professional development” (Dretzke & Sheldon, 2015, p. 203). Indeed, students can share their perspectives on what best practices are as well as identify areas for teacher improvement. 

Students spend the most time with teachers and they are the ones responsible for learning the content that teachers are responsible for teaching. Not asking for students’ perspectives would deprive teachers of unique professional development opportunities and students from being more engaged in school. In conclusion, all states should allow or require student feedback surveys in teacher evaluations and incorporate them collaboratively. When students are treated as data points, they are more likely to be disengaged and disempowered (Mitra & Gross, 2009; Halx, 2014). Changing the focus of teacher evaluation policies regarding student voice to: surveying with students instead of surveying students, and to speaking with students instead of speaking for students (Fielding, 2001, 2004) is possible (Sands et al., 2007) in developmentally appropriate ways.

---

^[1] AK, AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, ID, KS, MN, MS, MO, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, VT, VA, WA, WI, WY

^[2] CT, GA, HI, IA, KY, MA, UT

---

Seyma Dagistan-Terzi is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Theory and Policy Program at Penn State University. She earned two undergraduate degrees, one in Political Science from Bilkent University, the other in English language teaching, literature and culture from the Middle East Technical University and SUNY. She has a master’s degree in Psychology from the University of East London. She worked as a literary translator for a couple of publishing companies, and as an English teacher at the Bogazici University. Her current interests are in understanding and evaluating grassroots approaches to education. Specifically, Seyma is interested in understanding the extent to which students can contribute in education as street-level bureaucrats through dialogue and youth-adult partnerships and the role of educators in encouraging students’ contributions.

References

Boston Student Advisory Council. (2012). “We are the ones in the classrooms—Ask us!” Student Voice in Teacher Evaluations. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1).

Bragg, S. (2007). “It’s not about systems, it’s about relationships”: Building a listening culture in a primary school. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.) International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 659-680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Doherty, K. M., & Jacobs, S. (2015). State of the states 2015. Evaluating teaching, leading and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

Dretzke, B. J., Sheldon, T. D., & Lim, A. (2015). What Do K-12 Teachers Think About Including Student Surveys in Their Performance Ratings?. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(3).

Follman, J. (1992). Secondary school students’ ratings of teacher effectiveness. The High School Journal, 75(3), 168–178.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change,2(2), 123–141.

Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311.

Geiger, T., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2019). Student perception surveys for K-12 teacher evaluation in the United States: A survey of surveys. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1602943.

Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Halx, M.D. (2014). A more critical pedagogy: could it reduce non-completer rates of maleLatino high school students? The student perspective. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22 (2), 251-274.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Research Paper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

LaFee, S. (2014). Students evaluating teachers. School Administrator, 3(71), 17–25.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2019). DESE Model Feedback Instruments & Administration Protocols. Retrieved from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/feedback/surveys.html?section=faq2#faq

Mansfield, K. C., Welton, A., & Halx, M. (2018). Listening to student voice: toward a more holistic approach to school leadership. JEEL, 10

Mitra, D. L., & Gross, S. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Buildingpartnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(4), 522–543.

Sands, D. I., Guzman, L., Stephens, L., & Boggs, A. (2007). Including student voices inschool reform: Students speak out. Journal of Latinos in Education, 6(4), 323–345.

Sanford, H. (2013, May). Students speak: teachers in Lee County, FL embrace student feedbackto improve instruction. The NEA Foundation Issue Brief. Retrieved from https://www.neafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/1368553590NEAF_IssueBrief8_May2013.pdf

West, L. (2004). ‘The learner’s voice. Making space? Challenging space?’, Keynote Address at the Canterbury Action Research Network (CANTARNET) Conference, reported in The Enquirer, Spring 2005.

Youth on Board (2013). Student Video Matters [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.studentvoicematters.org/video