positive and negative pedagogical practices as a result of the implementation of the TKES process.
Positive pedagogical influences. The one positive effect of TKES experienced by the majority of the participants was their use of data to address the 10 performance standards involved in the TAPs portion of the evaluation. Use of data is critical in six of the 10
performance standards that address planning, instructional delivery, and assessment of and for learning. None of the 12 participants have received a rating of IV in the standard that addresses assessment of and for learning, and, therefore, this standard has remained on their self-
has forced teachers to be more accountable for the data they obtain, assess, and use to drive instruction. She stated:
I think because data is such a key component to TKES and keeping track of student progress, that I am much more in tune to the progress monitoring instruments that I choose and whether or not they are a direct reflection for the goals for those students. I want to make sure that how we are measuring student growth and accumulating data – not just for the sake of accumulating data but if you’re going to do something and it’s going to take some energy and some time, do it so that it does positively impact the student. (Joy, interview, March 22, 2017)
Joyce also felt that TKES has helped teachers work together toward a common goal, which is implemented with the PLC model. She concurred, “I would say that the formative movement was really pushed by the TKES movement, and it has helped a lot of teachers in dividing and conquering” (Joyce, interview, February 3, 2017). Leslie knew this was an area of weakness for her, and consequently this was at the forefront of her teaching methods. She stated:
I also need to improve upon the assessment strategies – the different ones that we should be using and that kind of thing so those areas I constantly feel like I’m trying to improve upon and I always make comments when I’m filling out the TKES evaluations on-line that those are the areas that I know I struggle in or my weakness that I’m trying to do better in. (Leslie, interview, January 27, 2017)
Jenny was vocal about the fact that TKES had initiated the PLC movement, which was a step in the right direction for optimum student learning. She felt that both TKES and PLCs attempt to achieve the same goal:
TKES is making us look at the data, analyze the data and it’s not really a choice. I think that sitting down with other teachers and collaborating, I think that’s beneficial to share common goals and what can we do, I do think that is beneficial. (Jenny, interview, March 6, 2017)
Eleven of the 12 of the participants believed that the TKES process has merit in that teachers must self-reflect on their evaluations. All participants with more than five years’
experience mentioned in their answers that they could show the administrators what they want to see in the classroom observations and in the documentation. So, while authors of the Georgia TKES (Stronge, Tonneson et al., 2011) attempted to provide an objective platform for true teacher performance in a classroom, the teachers have learned over the past four years what was expected, and what exactly they needed to do to “beat the system” and receive a Proficient score. The participants used the terms “dog and pony show,” “cart and pony show,” “jumping through hoops,” and “being ready for the administrator to come into the room.”
Negative pedagogical influences. The Georgia TKES Handbook (2016) stated that Georgia developed the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) to provide teachers with more meaningful feedback and support so they can achieve the goal of increasing academic learning and achievement for all students. The data revealed that in the short time of utilizing TKES, teachers have realized that they could deliver a showcase lesson for their administrators, create data to document addressing the standards, and as Roy stated, “Give them what they want to see” (Roy, interview, February 10, 2017). TKES may not be as objective as it was designed to be, and in four short years, teachers have already determined how to “jump through the hoops” according to Kay (interview, February 8, 2017). One of the purposes of TKES is to identify teachers who are not effective, and if teachers can manipulate the major part of the evaluation,
TKES may be a futile attempt to identify substandard teachers. Dr. Lawrence (a pseudonym for an administrator from this school district), recently stated that out of the current 2,634 teachers in Keller County (a pseudonym), only five received a Level II rating. This information would lead one to believe that the TKES process is not identifying ineffective teachers, or that the remaining 2,629 teachers are highly effective.
Several of the participants expressed how their behavior was different when an
administrator was in the room for evaluation purposes. Kay stated that she is very cautious in how she even speaks to her kindergarten students when an administrator is present for
evaluation. She stated, “I would say the same kind of thing all day, the kids and I are fine, and everything is fine, but I feel like they’re kind of looking at like – oh, she shouldn’t have said that” (Kay, interview, February 8, 2017). Jenny was ready for her administrators when she knew they might be coming. She stated: “Usually I know the weeks that they might be coming, and I can have everything laid out but normally my stuff would be filed” (Jenny, interview, March 6, 2017). Leslie said her school was usually aware of the week the administrator was coming and, therefore, she was “definitely on the ball when you know it’s coming up” (Interview, January 27, 2017). Megan, a first-year teacher, worried about her students’ behavior while being observed. She commented that when an administrator was in the room she felt the following:
Let me get my act together, and then I feel like when a child misbehaves or something in your classroom I’m like okay, how would they handle it? So, I handle it based on what I think they would want to see and I think a lot of times I’ll do something just because I feel like oh, this is what they would want me to do and it’s not really how I would normally react. (Megan, interview, March 15, 2017)
Roy believed he was not his true self when an administrator was in his classroom, and therefore, they never saw the true Roy. He stated, “I’m never my natural self when someone’s watching me. I don’t like people looking at me to begin with, and then when you add that extra element to the classroom, I’m not my natural self” (Roy, interview, February 10, 2017). Sharon stated that her comfort level had gotten better over the past four years. She admitted, “I wasn’t going to write on the board because I would shake like a leaf, so I never wanted to write on the board when I knew they were coming in” (Sharon, interview, March 14, 2017). Only one
participant, Joy, stated that she did not change the way she taught or acted when an administrator was in the room.
Theme 3: Documenting the evaluation process. The third theme to emerge from the