Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“First, Do No Harm?”: A Framework for Ethical Decision-Making in Teacher Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Student Growth Measures in Policy and Practice

Abstract

The authors examine issues within current teacher evaluation reform, using ethics as a disciplinary lens. The chapter begins with a call for educational decision-makers to attend to the moral dimensions of teacher evaluation, especially when considering the potential intended and unintended consequences of the use of student growth measures (SGMs). Using a hypothetical example, the authors provide a practical framework for educational decision-makers that may illuminate overlooked ethical concerns. This chapter offers steps for administrators to contextualize, analyze, and more thoughtfully navigate ethical quandaries that arise in the design and/or implementation of teacher evaluation systems. The authors argue that this framework provides a useful, additive approach for evaluating the impact of SGMs, shedding light on possible considerations for high-stakes educational decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Evaluation Association. (2004). Guiding principles for evaluators. Washington, DC: American Evaluation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Statistical Association. (2014). Statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Collins, C. (2012). The SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (SAS EVAAS) in the Houston Independent School District (HISD): Intended and unintended consequences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1096

  • Baker, B. D., Oluwole, J. O., & Green, P. C. (2013). The legal consequences of mandating high-stakes decisions based on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the race-to-the-top era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(5), 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., et al. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.epi.org/publication/bp278/

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’ s youth. Teachers College Record, 115(December), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessments: A fatal flaw. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, S., & Green, S. A. (2006). An ethical framework for psychiatry. The British Journal of Psychiatry : The Journal of Mental Science, 188, 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunda, M. A. (1985). Alternative systems of ethics and their application to education and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 8, 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Putting growth and value-added models on the map: A national overview. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, K. M., & Jacobs, S. (2015). State of the states 2015: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/StateofStates2015

  • Drane, J. F. (1982). Ethics and psychotherapy: A philosophical perspective. In M. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Ethics and values in psychotherapy (pp. 15–50). New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1979). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, J. (2013). Educational assessment policy and practice: A matter of ethics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 205–220. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2013.765384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. M. (2015, June 5). The missing framework: A case for utilizing ethics to evaluate the fairness of educator evaluation systems (Commentary). Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org

  • Goldhaber, D. (2010). When the stakes are high, can we rely on value-added? Exploring the use of value-added models to inform teacher workforce decisions. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org

  • Gullickson, A. R., & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831. doi:10.3102/0002831210387916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, E. R. (1976). Justice in evaluation. In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 1, pp. 75–100). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, E. R. (1978). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. Educational Researcher, 7(3), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, E. R. (1980). The role of theories of justice in evaluation—Justice on strike. Educational Theory, 30(1), 67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, K. R., & Moses, M. S. (1999). Ethics in educational research. Review of Research in Education, 24, 21–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2013). Validity and fairness in the testing of individuals. In M. Chatterji (Ed.), Validity and test use: An international dialogue on educational assessment, accountability and equity (pp. 17–53). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, K. S., & Kitchener, R. F. (2009). Social science research ethics: Historical and philosophical issues. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 5–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, K. S., & Kitchener, R. F. (2012). Ethical foundations. In S. Knapp, M. C. Gottlieb, M. M. Handelsman, & L. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology, Vol 1: Moral foundations and common themes (1st ed., pp. 3–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2009). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (1990). Contemporary political theory: An introduction. New York, NY: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2013). Teacher and student evaluation: Moving beyond the failure of school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1985). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–45). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. (2003). Ethical considerations in evaluation. In Springer international handbooks of education: International handbook of educational evaluation. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/spredev/ethical_considerations_in_evaluation/0

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. (Ed.) (2008). Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentaries. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the evaluator: 25 years of AJE ethics. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. L., & Brown, R. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D. (2014). Twenty-first-century evaluation. InValidity in educational & psychological assessment (pp. 183–226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paige, M. A. (2012). Using VAM in high-stakes employment decisions. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 29–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paige, M. A. (2014). A legal argument against the use of VAMs in teacher evaluation. Teachers College Record, 166(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullin, D. (2013). Legal issues in the use of student test scores and value-added models (VAM) to determine educational quality. Educational Policy Analysis Arhives, 21(6), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 492–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables (NBER Working Paper No. 14666). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scherrer, J. (2011). Measuring teaching using value-added modeling: The imperfect panacea. NASSP Bulletin, 95(2), 122–140. doi:10.1177/0192636511410052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2012). What are error rates for classifying teacher and school performance using value-added models? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(2), 142–171. doi:10.3102/1076998611432174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. InPerspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. (2006). Ethics in evaluation. In I. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practices (pp. 243–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A. (1979). The role of theories of justice in evaluation: Why a house is not a home. Educational Theory, 29(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A. (1980). Justice in evaluation: Homecoming rejoinder to house. Educational Theory, 30(1), 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A. (1990). The ethics of educational evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 356–373). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Bull, B. (1981). Fairness and the legal context of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 303–343). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(3), 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter from Todd DeMitchell, Ph.D., and John Brackett, Ed.D.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

    Carla M. Evans, Jade Caines Lee & Winston C. Thompson

Authors
  1. Carla M. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jade Caines Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Winston C. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

    Kimberly Kappler Hewitt

  2. Arizona State University , Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Audrey Amrein-Beardsley

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Evans, C.M., Lee, J.C., Thompson, W.C. (2016). “First, Do No Harm?”: A Framework for Ethical Decision-Making in Teacher Evaluation. In: Kappler Hewitt, K., Amrein-Beardsley, A. (eds) Student Growth Measures in Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53900-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53901-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation