Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performativity, Datafication and the Techniques of Teacher Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy

Abstract

This chapter will map the prevailing discourses and modes of educational governance associated with contemporary teacher accountability, with a particular focus on performativity and datafication. Drawing on the extensive literature in these areas, this chapter will provide an overview of the evolving status of and approaches to contemporary teacher accountability, as well as the associated technologies that have emerged over the past three decades.

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
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
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 Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASAVAMStatement.pdf.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Cambridge: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betebenner, D.W. (2011, April). Student growth percentiles. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) training session presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunk, M. L. (2007). The QMI: Results from validation and scale-building. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, A. (2019). Datafied at four: The role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood education in England. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2017). The datafication of primary and early years education: Playing with numbers. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the midwest region. Issues & Answers, (30). Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R., & McPherson, A. (2019). Teachers and learners in a time of big data. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 6(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A., Vickers, R., & Eldridge, J. (2016). Legitimation, performativity and the tyranny of a ‘hijacked’ word. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 757–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers find no value in the SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS®). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(98), 98.

    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), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Freitas, E., & Dixon-Roman, E. (2017). The computational turn in educational research: Critical and creative perspectives on the digital data deluge. Research in Education, 98(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2019). Performative technologies and teacher subjectivities: A conceptual framework. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 502–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falabella, A. (2014). The performing school: The effects of market & accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(70), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falabella, A. (2016). Do national test scores and quality labels trigger school self-assessment and accountability? A critical analysis in the Chilean context. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(5), 743–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., & Chaplin, D. D. (2015). Assessing the “Rothstein Falsification Test”: Does it really show teacher value-added models are biased? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(1), 8–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I. (2019). The quandary of quantification: Data, numbers and teachers’ learning. Journal of Education Policy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1672211.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Holloway, J., & Brass, J. (2018). Making accountable teachers: The terrors and pleasures of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3), 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Introna, L. D. (2016). Algorithms, governance, and governmentality: On governing academic writing. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(1), 17–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarke, J., & Breiter, A. (2019). The datafication of education. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. (2000). Digital rule: Punishment, control and technology. Punishment & Society, 2(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481.

  • Lewis, S. (2017). Governing schooling through ‘what works’: the OECD’s PISA for Schools. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S., & Holloway, J. (2019). Datafying the teaching ‘profession’: Remaking the professional teacher in the image of data. Cambridge journal of education, 49(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2016). The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society, 45(1), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2018). How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 2053951718786314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (1992). Accounting and objectivity: the invention of calculating selves and calculable spaces. Annals of Scholarship, 9(1/2), 61–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge: Polity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mockler, N., & Stacey, M. (2020). Evidence of teaching practice in an age of accountability: when what can be counted isn’t all that counts. Oxford Review of Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1822794.

  • Oliva, M., Mathers, C., & Laine, S. (2009). Effective evaluation. Principal Leadership, 9(7), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orito, Y. (2011). The counter‐control revolution: “silent control” of individuals through dataveillance systems. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 9(1), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paige, M. A. (2016). Building a better teacher: Understanding value-added models in the law of teacher evaluation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. London, England: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2) 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, N. (2016). Neoliberalism and the marketisation of primary school assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 890–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • RttT Application. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Accessed on December 20, 2020: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executivesummary.pdf.

  • Rubin, D. B., Stuart, E. A., & Zanutto, E. L. (2004). A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2015). Data entry: Towards the critical study of digital data and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. J., & Duke, D. L. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on teacher evaluation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, T. B. (2016). Value-added measurement or modelling (VAM). Brussels, Belgium: Education International. Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016_EI_VAM_EN.pdf.

  • Taubman, P. M. (2010). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Manipulating the data: Teaching and NAPLAN in the control society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Tassel-Bask, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. (2007). Developing structured observation scales for Instructional improvements in classrooms accommodating gifted learners. Roeper Review, 29(2), 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vick, M. J., & Martinez, C. (2011). Teachers and teaching: Subjectivity, performativity and the body. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(2), 178–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York: The New Teacher Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, C. (2011). Professionalism and the post‐performative teacher: New teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 389–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, C. (2015). Education reform in England: Quality and equity in the performative school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(11), 1143–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2017). Learning in the ‘platform society’: Disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education, 98(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

    Jessica Holloway

Authors
  1. Jessica Holloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Holloway .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Holloway, J. (2021). Performativity, Datafication and the Techniques of Teacher Evaluation. In: Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-4813-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-4814-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation