View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Examination of Tenure and Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation: Evidence from Tennessee

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Examination of Tenure and Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation: Evidence from Tennessee
Language: English
Authors: Rodriguez, Luis A., Gegenheimer, Karin, Springer, Matthew G.
Source: Journal of Education Human Resources. Apr 2023 41(2):251-292.
Availability: University of Toronto Press. 5201 Dufferin Street, Toronto, ON M3H 5T8, Canada. Tel: 416-667-7810; Fax: 800-221-9985; Fax: 416-667-7881; e-mail: journals@utpress.utoronco.ca; Web site: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/jehr
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 42
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
High Schools
Elementary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Evaluation, Evaluation Methods, Teacher Attitudes, School Districts, Tenure, Teacher Effectiveness, Educational Policy, Feedback (Response), Educational Change, State Surveys, Comparative Analysis, Teacher Characteristics, Factor Analysis, Institutional Characteristics, Middle School Teachers, High School Teachers, Elementary School Teachers, Race, Ethnicity, Gender Differences, Teaching Experience, Teacher Qualifications, Age Differences, English Language Learners, Minority Group Students, Special Needs Students
Geographic Terms: Tennessee
DOI: 10.3138/jehr-2021-0050
ISSN: 2562-783X
Abstract: The utility of teacher evaluation depends on meaningful teacher engagement with evaluation processes. However, critics of traditional tenure policies suggest that tenure nullifies teacher engagement with practices to improve performance. This study investigates whether tenured teachers exhibit perceptions that reflect disengagement with evaluation and feedback and whether perceptions of evaluation vary based on teachers having received tenure under a reformed system that restricts lifetime protections conditional on continual high evaluation scores. Using statewide administrative and survey data from Tennessee, the study employs propensity score methods to isolate differences in perceptions between comparable groups of tenured and untenured teachers. Results show that tenured teachers report more negative perceptions of evaluation in their district; however, this difference is concentrated among those who received permanent tenure status prior to the reformed tenure system. The study concludes by discussing implications and directions for future research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1373307
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHiT0Z4OkFXLJn8WaPhKGEuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL2noU59pDxG1lZ8RwIBEICBm6_1vcaqn3gAzuvETbUn4vQluScmz6jP1Wkh6taE35SaBAvRVy8XL0y921YQ1PMiwdkyitoIeR3ACHIGcTceemrvyla7Rs2YwvzlEs7nZTabfUuXhnLIs9gZmNEb-OYaFi5Wr4XwZGeGWqgUdapE9MmUhtsAIGmJlPsT5avefIb5R6Oe89115WgOFdBC6c2J4fIBgBXdywiBLI-k
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184529457;[mmhi]01apr.23;2025Apr18.06:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184529457-1">An Examination of Tenure and Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation: Evidence from Tennessee </title> <p>The utility of teacher evaluation depends on meaningful teacher engagement with evaluation processes. However, critics of traditional tenure policies suggest that tenure nullifies teacher engagement with practices to improve performance. This study investigates whether tenured teachers exhibit perceptions that reflect disengagement with evaluation and feedback and whether perceptions of evaluation vary based on teachers having received tenure under a reformed system that restricts lifetime protections conditional on continual high evaluation scores. Using statewide administrative and survey data from Tennessee, the study employs propensity score methods to isolate differences in perceptions between comparable groups of tenured and untenured teachers. Results show that tenured teachers report more negative perceptions of evaluation in their district; however, this difference is concentrated among those who received permanent tenure status prior to the reformed tenure system. The study concludes by discussing implications and directions for future research.</p> <p>Keywords: teacher research; educational reform; evaluation; teacher; education; development; factor analysis; quasi-experimental analysis</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Teacher evaluation systems have functioned as a centerpiece of contemporary education reform over the past decade as policymakers and education scholars have made the case that teacher evaluation is capable of improving teacher instruction and student learning (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]; Steinberg & Sartain, 2015; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref2">56</reflink>]). Although teacher evaluation presents a promising mechanism for improving teacher quality, research shows that the developmental aspect of evaluation largely depends on teachers' perceptions of and engagement with the system as a tool for improvement ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]). For evaluation systems to be successful mechanisms for teacher development, teachers must recognize and interact with evaluation as a legitimate system for instructional support and development—a tool for learning, skill acquisition, and refinements to practice.</p> <p>Meanwhile, a longstanding debate has endured regarding whether the lifetime protection afforded to teachers through traditional tenure policies acts as a potential barrier to teachers' engagement with professional development activities. Critics of traditional tenure protections typically have posited that tenure nullifies teachers' motivation to improve their instruction and performance (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]). Such criticisms have reified into concrete policy change, as over the past decade several states have passed and implemented a number of reforms to the tenure process that either remove tenure entirely or restrict tenure status to teachers with demonstrated high performance. In fact, as of 2015, 23 states had legislated such changes to their respective tenure systems for public school teachers ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>While scholars have sought to examine the effects of tenure reform on teacher supply ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]), retention ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref11">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref12">54</reflink>]), and performance ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]), there remains a lack of understanding surrounding the ways in which tenured teachers perceive and interact with the educator evaluation process, a central aspect of the teaching profession intended to support instructional improvement. Tenure status, in its traditional form, ensures continued employment regardless of performance. Traditional tenure policies may render the evaluation process less useful to teachers with such protections. Conversely, reforms that weaken tenure protections may incentivize tenured teachers—who must demonstrate continued effectiveness vis-à-vis evaluation scores—to interact with the evaluation process as a tool for improvement, similarly to what we might expect for untenured teachers.</p> <p>The current study offers a novel contribution by examining the extent to which tenure status is associated with teacher perceptions of evaluation. We focus on teacher perceptions, given prior work highlighting the importance of perceptions to successful policy reform and implementation ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref16">52</reflink>]). The extent to which teachers perceive the evaluation system favorably has important implications for whether and to what degree they are likely to engage with the system as a means for instructional improvement. We thus build on a growing body of literature examining teacher perceptions of evaluation reform ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref21">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref22">58</reflink>]) and focus our examination on how tenure (and changes to the tenure process) interplay with teacher perceptions of evaluation.</p> <p>We explore the relationship between tenure and teacher perceptions of evaluation by asking the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) To what extent do tenured teachers perceive the evaluation process differently than their untenured teacher counterparts? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) by how much do these relationships vary based on whether teachers received tenure under a reformed system? We address these questions by focusing on Tennessee, one of several states in which recent policy reform has altered the tenure eligibility process. Under the new tenure statute implemented in 2011, tenure is afforded exclusively to teachers with high performance under the evaluation system. Using available survey responses from over 15,000 public school teachers throughout the state, we extract common factors representing teachers' perceptions of evaluation; we then use a rich set of observable teacher characteristics and a battery of propensity score weighting and matching techniques to draw a comparison group of untenured teachers to estimate the influence of tenure status on teachers' perceptions of evaluation.</p> <p>Results from this study show a significant relationship between teachers' tenure status and their perceptions of evaluation. Tenured teachers report significantly poorer perceptions of evaluation than those reported by untenured teachers. However, more negative perceptions are largely concentrated among teachers who received tenure prior to its reform; teachers with reformed tenure protections report perceptions of evaluation that are statistically indistinguishable from those of untenured teachers. Although our analysis relies on a nonexperimental design, our results are robust across various propensity score weighting and modeling approaches and provide, to the best of our knowledge, the first evidence on the influence of tenure on teacher dispositions toward evaluation. As tenure reform takes an increasingly prominent role in the education policy context, our study marks an important first step in understanding the multidimensional ways in which tenure protections influence teacher attitudes about developmental practices that are at present a core component in the theory of action underlying teacher evaluation policy.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-3">The Importance of Teachers' Perceptions of Evaluation Policy</hd> <p>One of the primary functions of educator performance evaluation is to provide administrators and teachers with a tool to provide feedback, facilitate teacher learning, and improve the delivery of instruction ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]; Donaldson, 2021; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref27">59</reflink>]). From a psychological perspective, cognition and sensemaking play a critical role in the teacher evaluation process. Cognition, defined as "a process of gaining knowledge and understanding" through perception of stimuli in the environment and drawing connections across stimuli (Donaldson, 2021, p. 13), is at the heart of how individuals understand and interpret stimuli and whether to emphasize or "block" what the brain determines to be more or less significant (Donaldson, 2021; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]). Moreover, cognition is situated in a larger context that embodies individuals' interaction with their physical work environment, their interactions with other people and groups, and change over time as they make meaning of concepts and situations (Donaldson, 2021; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref29">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref30">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>The theory of action guiding teacher evaluation, stated simply, is that teachers will change their behavior in response to formative feedback. However, teacher behavior is largely shaped by individual cognitive processes ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]), suggesting that teachers' beliefs about and perceptions of evaluation inform how they decide what actions to take (or not take) in response to feedback with the intent to meaningfully improve instruction. As with all cognitive and sensemaking processes, how teachers perceive evaluation and the feedback they receive is situated within and informed by a larger context (Donaldson, 2021), which itself comprises classroom and school factors (e.g., the performance of a teacher's students, availability of materials in their classroom); a social setting (e.g., a teacher's professional relationships and interactions with colleagues and administrators); and a broader policy environment affecting teachers (e.g., compensation systems, tenure policies).</p> <p>Several scholars have emphasized the role that individual perceptions and sense-making play in the extent to which policy achieves its intended outcomes (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]). How individuals understand, interpret, and act on policy directives in relation to their jobs can have profound implications for whether policies are instituted as policymakers originally conceptualized and intended. It is thus essential to consider both the nature of policy directives and the cognitive processes of individuals directly affected by and responsible for implementing those directives. With respect to teacher evaluation specifically, gaining a deeper understanding of the implementation and effects of performance evaluation systems for teachers necessitates an investigation of how teachers derive meaning from directives associated with and embedded within the evaluation process so that they are able to translate those directives into positive changes in their instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-4">Prior Research on Teachers' Perceptions of Evaluation Reform</hd> <p>A broad literature based on descriptive case studies informs how teachers perceive newly reformed evaluation policies. A fundamental premise of this literature is that teachers' perceptions of evaluation are an integral element of the successful implementation of evaluation reform. Overall, findings from these studies suggest that the vast majority of teachers generally have neutral or positive experiences with evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref37">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref39">46</reflink>]) but that implementation issues vary significantly across districts and schools. Findings across the studies highlighted a range of teacher concerns with evaluation processes, including unfair and inequitable treatment of teachers ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]), low quality of feedback ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]), insufficient training for evaluators ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref45">39</reflink>]), and burdensome workload and time commitment imposed on both teachers and principals ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]). Other work has focused specifically on teacher attitudes toward the formative aspects of evaluation, exploring how teachers make sense of and react to evaluation feedback. Findings suggest that while some teachers view evaluation feedback as an opportunity to reflect on their practice, many teachers exhibit superficial dispositions toward evaluation and struggle to see the value of evaluation processes for instructional improvement ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>A more limited body of research leveraging teacher surveys administered across multiple settings has considered what factors affect teachers' perceptions of reformed educator evaluation systems and how their perceptions influence changes in their teaching practice. Prior work indicates that teachers' pre-existing attitudes to evaluation correlate with how they perceive reforms to evaluation systems. For example, utilizing responses from the American Teacher Panel—a randomly selected, nationally representative panel of public school teachers across the United States—[<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref51">57</reflink>] found that teachers who believed the purpose of evaluation was to promote growth and development were more likely to perceive changes to evaluation systems as fair. Further, teachers' perceptions of evaluation reform significantly predict favorable changes in teacher practice. Based on surveys probing teachers' perceptions of a newly implemented evaluation system in a large midwestern state, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>] found that teachers' perceptions of evaluation procedures as fair, valid, and effective are structurally related to their perceptions that evaluation positively impacts instruction. Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>] found that, within the context of a newly implemented evaluation process in Virginia, teachers' perceived legitimacy of evaluation policies is correlated with a higher likelihood of taking actions to improve their instruction.</p> <p>Findings across other studies present mixed evidence regarding whether teacher perceptions of evaluation reform are a function of teacher characteristics and perceived school environments. For example, in a study of primary school teachers in Romania, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>] found that teachers' assessment of the purpose of evaluation depended on teacher education level and years of experience in the field. However, another study of teacher evaluation, in New Jersey, found no relationship between teacher education level or years of experience and perceptions of the evaluation system and the perceived quality of evaluation feedback ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref55">45</reflink>]). In a separate study examining changes to Belgium's teacher evaluation policy, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref56">58</reflink>] used survey instruments to measure teachers' perception of a newly implemented evaluation system. Although they found that teachers perceived reforms to the evaluation process as a necessary and clear policy change, teachers nevertheless had concerns about the new policy's implementation that were centered specifically on beliefs that the school and school's leadership did not have suitable resources and knowledge to carry out the reformed teacher evaluation process. In addition, Jiang and colleagues (2009) found that teacher perceptions of the newly implemented evaluation system in Chicago public schools, REACH, were positively correlated with perceptions of leadership and professional community within their schools.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-5">The Evaluation Process and Tenure as an Extrinsic Motivator</hd> <p>While prior work has considered the role of individual- and school-level characteristics in teachers' perceptions of evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]; Jiang et al., 2009; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]), notably absent in the literature is how teacher personnel policies, particularly tenure policies, influence teacher perceptions of evaluation. The permanency of tenure (or the lack thereof) arguably functions as an extrinsic motivator to facilitate teachers' continual engagement in evaluation and professional development processes. A robust body of research affirms the relationship between extrinsic motivators and individual performance ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]), lending credence to the notion that external motivation in the form of nonpermanent tenure may serve as an essential element for teachers to continually and meaningfully engage with professional development processes such as evaluation and enact durable change in their instruction. The dearth of research on the role of tenure status in teachers' beliefs about and attitudes toward evaluation is thus particularly concerning, considering the commonly articulated claim that teacher effort and behavior return to a "status quo" or "falter" when tenure is received (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref62">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two recent studies, however, address the question of how tenure and changes in tenure policy interplay with teachers' perceptions of evaluation and accountability. A study by [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref63">45</reflink>] focusing on teacher evaluation in four urban districts in New Jersey found that tenured teachers were more likely than their untenured counterparts to have positive perceptions of evaluation on three distinct dimensions: satisfaction with the system, satisfaction with the process, and the extent to which the evaluation system motivates changes in teacher behavior ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref64">45</reflink>]). However, these findings are based on bivariate correlations and do not account for the numerous differences between tenured and untenured teachers that could be driving the apparent perceptual differences. Recent qualitative research based on interviews with pre-tenure teachers in Tennessee found that some teachers espoused the belief that reformed tenure policies tying measured performance to tenure eligibility served as a sensible form of incentivized accountability in theory, but presented some concerns about fairness in practice ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref65">47</reflink>]). The current study aims to extend this modest body of research to address the question of whether tenure status relates to differences in teachers' perceptions of evaluation using administrative and survey data from Tennessee.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-6">Teacher Policy Reform in Tennessee</hd> <p>In 2011, Tennessee implemented a category of reforms affecting the K–12 teacher workforce, primarily centered on changing the ways in which teachers were compensated and evaluated and could become eligible for tenure. The federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant competition served as the primary impetus guiding the scope of these reforms. As specified in both federal and state policy and legislative documents, the intended purpose of the reforms placed emphasis on facilitating "recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers" (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref66">61</reflink>], p. 2) and endeavored to do so in part by designing and implementing "rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers" to inform decisions regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion, retention, and tenure ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref67">61</reflink>], p. 9). Below, we highlight two of the major set of teacher policy reforms to the state's public school teacher evaluation system and teacher tenure system, as well as how policy reforms inextricably linked these formerly separate processes.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-7">Educator Evaluation Reform</hd> <p>In July 2011, the Tennessee State Board of Education approved the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) as the new default evaluation model across the state. In accordance with RTTT federal guidance, TEAM incorporated four main characteristics: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) measurement of student growth at the individual student level; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) inclusion of multiple categories on which to evaluate teacher effectiveness, with student growth accounting for a significant portion of the overall measure of effectiveness; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) annual evaluation of teachers and principals; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) use of evaluations to inform decisions regarding professional development, compensation, promotion, retention, and tenure ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref72">60</reflink>]). Although Tennessee ultimately approved four alternate classroom observation models, each model incorporates all four of the aforementioned criteria.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Across all evaluation models, teacher performance is evaluated across three separate dimensions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) student growth, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>) student achievement, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>) classroom observations. Student growth composes 35% of a teacher's overall performance and is measured using teacher-level value-added estimates from standardized tests. For teachers to whom standardized tests are not applicable (i.e., teachers in nontested grades and subjects), this individual growth measure is replaced by a school- or district-level measure of student growth. Student achievement is weighted at 15% of a teacher's overall evaluation score. This measure is flexible from teacher to teacher, as each teacher and his or her evaluating principal mutually decide on a measure of student achievement distinct from student test scores. For instance, a high school teacher could elect to use the school-level graduation rate as the measure of student achievement. The remaining 50% of the evaluation score is calculated from classroom observations. Teachers receive classroom observations by trained, certified observers throughout the school year, during which teachers are scored across several instructional indicators.</p> <p>A primary purpose of classroom observations is to provide teachers with instructional feedback. Depending on the type of evaluation model, the number of observations a teacher receives can vary from 4 to 10 per year. Although the specific structure of the feedback mechanism depends on the evaluation model (e.g., duration and frequency of announced versus unannounced observations, observation rubric domains), all teachers participate in post-observation feedback conferences with observers and receive written feedback intended to provide specific forms of reinforcement and refinement.</p> <p>The three key performance measures (student growth, student achievement, and observations) combine to create a comprehensive measure of teacher effectiveness, termed the Level of Effectiveness (LOE). LOE is measured on a continuous scale that ranges from 0 to 500 and is cut into five discrete categories that are used as the primary evaluation ratings, ranging from a Level 1 rating ("Significantly below Expectation") to Level 5 ("Significantly above Expectation"). Aside from identifying levels of teacher quality for purposes of teacher development, evaluation ratings are incorporated into decisions about compensation, promotion, retention, and tenure.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-8">Reforms to the Teacher Tenure Process</hd> <p>In the same year that Tennessee implemented reforms to its teacher evaluation system, the Tennessee General Assembly voted to amend the public school teacher tenure statute to strengthen the eligibility requirements required for tenure. Implemented in the 2011–2012 academic year, the new statute made comprehensive changes to tenure protections, most notably requiring tenure decisions to be linked to evaluation ratings. Under the prior tenure statute, tenure was granted to teachers conditional on serving a three-year probationary period during which they remained teaching in the same district. Tenure decisions did not take into account measures of teacher performance or effectiveness.</p> <p>The new tenure statute makes several amendments to this law. First, the new statute extends the probationary period to five years. Second, to receive tenure teachers must receive an effective evaluation rating of either 4 ("Above Expectation") or 5 ("Significantly Above Expectation") during the last two years of the probationary period. Teachers who do not receive tenure at the end of their five-year probationary period may either be rehired on a year-to-year basis or dismissed. Third, the new statute mandates that tenured teachers continue to demonstrate high levels of performance. If a tenured teacher's overall evaluation rating drops below Level 3 for two consecutive years, the teacher will lose tenure protections and must cycle through the entire process again to regain tenure status. However, teachers who received tenure under the old statute (before 2011) were grandfathered in, so that their tenure status is not at all vulnerable to evaluation ratings (Tennessee Code Title 49).</p> <p>It goes without saying that the reformed evaluation and tenure statute place a newfound emphasis on teacher evaluation in Tennessee. By formally linking tenure eligibility to a teacher's evaluation ratings, the pairing of these two teacher policy reforms necessitates that teachers who are seeking or have received tenure under the new statute have a higher stake in their evaluation ratings than teachers who were granted tenure under the prior statute. In fact, the rate at which teachers became eligible for tenure declined drastically in the years after reform, as only approximately 30% of teachers who reached the end of the probation period in 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 received two consecutive effective evaluation ratings required for tenure eligibility (Level 4 or Level 5; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]). Therefore, not only may tenure status in and of itself translate into differences in perceptions of the relevance of evaluation, but also the policy environment in which a teacher received tenure may also influence how she or he perceives the evaluation process.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-9">Data and Methods</hd> <p>To estimate the relationship between teachers' tenure status and their perceptions of evaluation, we use a combination of survey data collected through the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey (TES) and statewide administrative data on public school teachers in Tennessee. The 2017 TES, in its seventh year of existence, measures experiences and perspectives of educators from public schools (including charters) throughout the state. Administered in partnership between the Tennessee Education Research Alliance and the Tennessee Department of Education via an online platform during the spring of the 2016–2017 academic year, the survey asks core background questions and targeted perceptual questions for teachers, administrators, counselors, instructional coaches, and other certified support staff. Our analysis focuses on teachers who responded to the <emph>Evaluation</emph> teacher module of the Tennessee Educator Survey with nonmissing administrative data.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]</p> <p>We limit our analysis to the 2017 TES administration for two primary reasons. First, this was the only year in which teachers who completed the <emph>Evaluation</emph> module were also asked to directly confirm their tenure status in the core component of the survey, which are both sets of information critical to our current analysis. Second, the 2016–2017 school year marked an optimal point in time to assess differences in perception between teachers who earned tenure under the previous system pre-reform and those who earned tenure under the reformed system, as this was the third year a cohort of teachers could become eligible for tenure under the reformed tenure process (the first cohort completed the required five-year probationary period during the 2013–14 school year). Our final analytic sample contains 7,989 teachers who became eligible for tenure under the previous tenure system and 1,179 teachers who became tenured under the reformed system.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]</p> <p>The administrative data include background and demographic information for individual teachers—age, gender, race/ethnicity, prior education history, years of teaching experience, and level of effectiveness—as well as information on teachers' schools—student enrollment and the socio-demographic composition of students served by the school with respect to gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program, special education (SPED) status, and English language learner (ELL) status. Table 1 provides summary statistics for the full population of teachers in the state of Tennessee and our final analytic sample with corresponding mean differences—Table A1 provides additional summary descriptives at the school level. Our analytic sample represents 15,175 of 67,893 teachers, or approximately 22% of the public school teacher workforce throughout the state in the 2016–2017 school year.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>] Our sample is distinct from the total population of public school teachers in Tennessee in only a few observable ways: the analytic sample comprises a slightly greater proportion of white teachers and teachers who work in schools with a smaller proportion of students of color. Otherwise, there are very few meaningful differences in observable teacher and school characteristics between the total universe of teachers in Tennessee and the final analytic sample.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-10">Measuring Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation</hd> <p>Studies across the extant literature define teachers' perceptions of evaluation processes in distinct and dissimilar ways, which partially reflects the lack of a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying stakeholder perceptions of teacher evaluation policies. Some studies define distinct attitudinal domains to measure teachers' perceptions of evaluation, including the extent to which evaluation procedures are clear, practical, and costly ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref81">35</reflink>]; Tuytens & Devos, 2010) or credible, fair, and useful ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>]). Other studies consider aspects of the implementation of the evaluation process to delineate whether teachers believed the feedback received from evaluators was high-quality, evaluation procedures were fair, and the organizational context in which educators worked provided enabling conditions for effective evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref83">39</reflink>]). More recently, scholars have used the Teacher Evaluation Experience Scale to measure and describe teacher experiences with evaluation in four broad domains: the overall functioning of the evaluation system, the quality of evaluation feedback, the extent of collaboration within the evaluation process, and the degree to which the evaluation system, feedback, and process motivate changes in teacher behavior ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref84">45</reflink>]). Still other work has drawn on the concept of policy legitimacy to describe teachers' perceptions of evaluation policies ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold>Table 1:</bold> Summary Statistics for All TN Public School Teachers and Analytical Sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2" colspan="1" /><th align="center" valign="middle" colspan="2" rowspan="1">All TN Teachers</th><th align="center" valign="middle" colspan="2" rowspan="1">Survey Respondents</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Std. Mean Difference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"><italic>Teacher characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Years of teaching experience</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.571</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.672</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.354</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.483</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.082</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Age</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.678</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.420</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">43.442</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.995</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.068</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.787</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.409</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.820</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.384</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.082</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"> Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  White</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.848</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.359</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.911</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.284</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.156</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Black</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.120</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.325</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.074</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.262</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.197</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"> Education level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Bachelor's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.413</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.492</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.389</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.488</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.048</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.483</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.500</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.508</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.500</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.049</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  More than master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.263</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.079</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.269</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.015</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  PhD</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.011</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.106</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.011</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.104</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.003</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Total salary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49,964.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">10,325.19</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49,990.28</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9480.35</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.003</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"> Prior level of effectiveness</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 1</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.030</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.024</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.011</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 2</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.018</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.134</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.013</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.111</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.046</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 3</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.146</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.353</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.127</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.333</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.055</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 4</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.426</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.427</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 5</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.408</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.492</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.433</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.049</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prior year exemption</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.035</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.184</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.012</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.109</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.152</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"><italic>School characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students FRPL-eligible</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.567</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.245</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.559</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.234</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students SPED</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.165</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.068</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.168</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.067</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.046</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students of color</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.375</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.319</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.310</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.272</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.218</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students ESL</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.119</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.149</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.117</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.147</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.013</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.484</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.040</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.483</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.023</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="6" rowspan="1"> School level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Elementary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.377</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.485</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.379</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.485</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.005</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Middle</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.277</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.448</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.304</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.460</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.058</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  High</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.346</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.476</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.317</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.465</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.061</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School enrollment</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">779.066</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">466.808</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">758.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">447.588</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.045</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Aggregated perception of school leadership</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">< 0.001</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.003</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.017</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.008</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.017</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Observations</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">67,893</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15,175</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Source: Authors' calculations based on 2016–2017 state administrative data and the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey.</p> <p>Similarly to [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>] and Tuytens and Devos (2010), we draw on modified versions of conceptual policy change paradigms developed by [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>] to focus on three measures of teacher perceptions that are observable in available survey data—<emph>clarity</emph>, <emph>cost,</emph> and <emph>practicality</emph> of the evaluation system. We define <emph>clarity</emph> as the degree to which the evaluation system is understandable, has clear actionable elements, and has sufficient support to facilitate an understanding of its underlying directives and purpose. We define <emph>cost</emph> as the extent to which the evaluation process is burdensome on the time and resources of the individuals it directly affects, that is, teachers. Last, <emph>practicality</emph> captures the extent to which the evaluation system contains appropriate procedures to achieve its intended function within a localized context, regardless of the level of burden imposed.</p> <p>We focus on 15 items that solicit teacher perceptions of evaluation. Table 2 delineates these items by the three domains—<emph>clarity, cost,</emph> or <emph>practicality</emph>. Teachers reported their general perceptions of evaluation in four areas: whether the teacher evaluation process (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>) affected their students' learning; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>) identified strengths in their teaching; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>) set clear expectations for their teaching; or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>) assisted with their lesson planning process. Teachers also answered questions on their perceptions of the teacher evaluation system implemented specifically within their district in six aspects: whether its criteria (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) equally applied to all teachers; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>) effectively identified "good" teachers; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>) effectively identified "struggling" teachers; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>) was reliable across evaluators; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>) provided detailed feedback; or (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref98">6</reflink>) involved evaluators with suitable expertise. In addition, teachers indicated their level of agreement on four statements regarding the use of the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), which served as the performance component measuring teacher contribution to student growth on standardized tests from year-to-year: whether (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) TVAAS should be used to inform professional learning priorities; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) TVAAS provides a useful tool for organizing the classroom at the beginning of the year; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>) a teacher can consult a trusted resource at the school or district to direct questions about TVAAS; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>) communication provided by the state department of education about TVAAS is easy to understand. All 14 items used a four-point Likert scale, ranging from <emph>1</emph> = <emph>Strongly Disagree</emph> through <emph>4</emph> = <emph>Strongly Agree.</emph> Finally, teachers also rated their overall perception of the burden of the evaluation system, which is distinctly structured as a five-point Likert scale, ranging from <emph>1</emph> = <emph>High Burden</emph> to <emph>5</emph> = <emph>Low Burden</emph>.</p> <p>Table 3 shows the proportion of teachers who responded in agreement with each of the item statements, by tenure status. In general, tenured teachers have poorer perceptions of the evaluation system. For instance, only 53.0% of tenured teachers agree that the teacher evaluation system in their district effectively identifies good teachers, compared with 62.3% of untenured teachers, which represents one of the largest unconditional mean differences in agreement across teacher groups. In contrast, teachers eligible for tenure perceive evaluation as a less burdensome process. A lower proportion of tenured teachers found that the burden of the evaluation system was high, in comparison with untenured teachers; and conversely, a larger proportion of tenured teachers responded that the evaluation system involved a low level of burden, again compared with untenured teachers.</p> <p> <bold>Table 2:</bold> Question Items Probing Perceptions of Evaluation in the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Question Prompt</th><th align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Values</th><th align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Perception Domain</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="3" rowspan="1"><italic>The teacher evaluation process</italic> ...</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Focused on the aspects of my work that will affect student learning.</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Helps me to identify areas where my teaching is strong.</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Provides me with clear expectations for my teaching.</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Helps me plan instruction and develop lesson plans.</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="3" rowspan="1"><italic>The evaluation system in my district</italic> ...</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Applies criteria equally to all teachers</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Effectively identifies good teachers</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Effectively identifies struggling teachers</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Is reliable across different evaluators</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Provides detailed feedback</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Involves evaluators with appropriate expertise</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="3" rowspan="1"><italic>Questions about Tennessee Value Added Assessment (TVAAS)</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> TVAAS should inform professional learning priorities</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> TVAAS is useful for organizing the classroom at the start of year</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Practicality</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> There is a school/district resource to consult about TVAAS questions</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Clarity</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Communication by the state about TVAAS is easy to understand</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree; 4-Strongly Agree</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Clarity</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>Please report on your view of the burden of the teacher evaluation process</italic>.</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1-Low Burden; ... ; 5-High Burden</td><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cost</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <bold>Table 3:</bold> Survey Measures for Perceptions of Evaluation, by Tenure Status</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1" /><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Untenured Teachers</th><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Tenured Teachers</th><th rowspan="2" align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="1">Std. Mean Difference</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>N</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>The teacher evaluation process...</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Focuses on aspects of work that affect student learning</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.819</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.385</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,984</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.761</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.426</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,145</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.143</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Identifies areas where teaching is strong</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.882</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.322</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,990</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.833</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.373</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,159</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.141</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Provides clear expectations for teaching</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.804</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.397</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,991</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.763</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.425</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,133</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.101</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Helps to plan instruction and develop lesson plans</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.724</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.447</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,979</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.666</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.472</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,121</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.125</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>The evaluation system in your district...</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Applies criteria equally to all teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.725</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.447</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,947</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.690</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.462</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,072</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.076</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Effectively identifies good teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.623</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.485</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,953</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.530</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.499</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,072</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.188</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Effectively identifies struggling teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.700</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.458</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,930</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.618</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.486</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,028</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.174</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Is reliable across different evaluators</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.568</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,948</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.487</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.500</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,036</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.162</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Provides detailed feedback</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.798</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.401</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,948</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.760</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.427</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,088</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.092</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Involves evaluators with appropriate expertise</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.827</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.378</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,957</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.789</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.408</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,062</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.095</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Questions about Tennessee Value Added Assessment (TVAAS)</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> TVAAS should inform professional learning priorities</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.570</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,781</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.495</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.500</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,787</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.152</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> TVAAS is useful for organizing the classroom at the start of year</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.582</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.493</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,804</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.483</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.500</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,825</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.199</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> There is a school/district resource to consult about TVAAS questions</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.702</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.457</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,786</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.712</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.453</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,784</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Communication by the state a bout TVAAS is easy to understand</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.438</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.496</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,747</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.394</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.489</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,727</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.091</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>The burden of the evaluation system</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> High</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.059</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.235</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,855</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.042</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.201</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,940</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Somewhat high</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.142</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.349</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,855</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.115</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.319</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,940</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.081</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Moderate</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.339</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.473</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,855</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.290</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.454</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,940</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.105</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Somewhat low</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.264</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.441</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,855</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.279</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.449</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,940</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.034</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Low</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.196</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.397</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,855</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.273</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.446</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8,940</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.182</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Source: Authors' calculations based on 2016–2017 state administrative data and the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey.</p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Mean represents proportion of respondents who "Agree" or "Strongly Agree."</p> <p>The observed perceptual differences suggest that tenured teachers find that evaluation provides less utility to their teaching, considering their level of job protection. In contrast, untenured teachers remain without any form of job protection and may exhibit more positive perceptions of the evaluation system, as they perceive it as a system that can help improve their teaching throughout the pre-tenure probation period. However, a central challenge to these descriptive comparisons is that tenured and untenured teachers are observably different across a number of dimensions. To address this concern, we explore the extent to which differences in teachers' perception of the evaluation system are associated with teacher tenure status more rigorously, using regression-adjusted methods described below.</p> <p>For the remainder of the study, we use teachers' responses on the individual survey items to measure distinct dimensions of teacher perceptions of evaluation, which serve as the primary dependent variables. Table 4 displays a correlation matrix among the individual items asking teachers about their perceptions of particular facets of evaluation. With the exception of the question about the perceived "burden of the evaluation system," intercorrelations indicate a range of weak to strong relationships across all remaining 14 items (0.20 to 0.78). In contrast, "burden of the evaluation system," which is our singular measure of <emph>cost</emph>, is weakly correlated with all remaining items, as its highest intercorrelation is 0.40.</p> <p>We conduct an exploratory factor analysis by focusing on the 14 survey items that were at minimum moderately correlated with one another, thus excluding the single "burden of the evaluation system" measure. We exclude "burden of the evaluation system" both because it correlates weakly with all other survey items and because it represents the distinct concept of the <emph>cost</emph> of the evaluation process rather than the <emph>practicality</emph> or <emph>clarity</emph> of evaluation, which the remaining items aim to represent. Two widely accepted approaches to testing the hypothesis that a correlation matrix is an identity matrix—Bartlett's sphericity test (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01) and the Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin Index (KMO = 0.93)—indicate sufficient correlation and adequate overlap among the remaining 14 items, leading to a clear three-factor structure, with all items loading on their respective factors at above 0.59. The first factor represents a teacher's general perception of the <emph>practicality</emph> of the evaluation system, with an eigenvalue of 6.99 and accounting for 50.0% of the variance; the second factor represents a teacher's perception of the <emph>practicality</emph> of his or her district's evaluation system, with an eigenvalue of 1.55 and accounting for 11.1% of the variance; the third factor represents a teacher's perceptions of the <emph>clarity/ practicality</emph> of TVAAS, with an eigenvalue of 1.01 and accounting for 7.2% of the variance.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref103">5</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref104">6</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-11">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>Tenure is naturally assigned in a nonrandom fashion, which confounds any attempt to identify a pure causal estimand representing its effect on teachers' perception of evaluation. Social science researchers traditionally address observable confounders in observational studies using standard regression adjustment; however, more advanced techniques, including propensity score matching and weighting, provide more robust alternatives for approximation of a causal relationship, as they reduce bias due to observed covariates ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref105">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref106">55</reflink>]). Thus, to estimate the relationship between tenure and perceptions of evaluation, our primary analysis uses a multiple regression approach applying propensity score weighting— inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA).</p> <p> <bold>Table 4:</bold> Correlation matrix of subitems and Cronbach's alpha (α) of latent perception factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">7</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">10</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">12</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">13</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14</th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>The teacher evaluation process...</italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>a</italic> = 0.916</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 1. Focuses on aspects of work that affect student learning</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 2. Identifies areas where teaching is strong</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 3. Provides clear expectations for teaching</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.78</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 4. Helps to plan instruction and develop lesson plans</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.71</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.67</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>The evaluation system in your district...</italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>a</italic> = 0.886</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 5. Applies criteria equally to all teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.48</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.48</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.51</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.46</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 6. Effectively identifies good teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.56</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.54</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.57</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.56</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.62</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 7. Effectively identifies struggling teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.76</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 8. Is reliable across different evaluators</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.54</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.63</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.70</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.64</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 9. Provides detailed feedback</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.51</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.55</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.51</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.54</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 10. Involves evaluators with appropriate expertise</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.46</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.47</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.44</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.47</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.44</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.63</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>Questions about Tennessee Value Added Assessment (TVAAS)</italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>a</italic> =  0.788</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 11.TVAAS should inform professional learning priorities</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.35</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.31</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.28</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.23</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 12. TVAAS is useful for organizing the classroom at the start of year</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.30</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.32</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.31</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.26</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.24</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.56</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 13. There is a school/district resource to consult about TVAAS questions</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.32</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.35</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.35</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.38</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.37</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.38</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.39</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 14. Communication by the state about TVAAS is easy to understand</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.29</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.30</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.36</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.29</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.53</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.49</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.52</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">__</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>Burden of the evaluation system</italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 15. Burden of the evaluation system</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.31</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.32</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.32</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.38</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.40</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.24</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.20</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.22</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.28</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Variables 1 through 14 are on a 4-category Likert-type scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Burden of evaluation is on a 5-category Likert-type scale from "Low" to "High."</p> <p>We consider tenure a variant characteristic influenced by how long teachers remain within their districts and—under the reformed system—how well they are rated throughout the evaluation process. In this regard, we model the propensity for a teacher to receive tenure as a by-product of selection based on factors affecting teacher turnover and performance. Although there are other approaches where propensity score techniques function as a centerpiece for the analytic strategy (e.g., nearest-neighbor matching, kernel matching), methodologists have no clear consensus on the single best approach ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref107">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref108">55</reflink>]). While we test the robustness of our results to alternative matching techniques, we selected IPWRA as our primary modeling strategy because it provides doubly robust estimation by simultaneously weighting our sample for covariate balance and statistically controlling for observable covariates to reduce omitted variable bias ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref109">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-12">Estimation of Propensity Score Weights</hd> <p>To estimate propensity scores, we selected a comprehensive set of teacher and school characteristics to predict the probability that a teacher would receive tenure. In practice, many of these characteristics are shown to influence teacher turnover and performance and are likely the primary determinants of whether teachers ultimately remained teaching in their districts for the required probation period to satisfy tenure eligibility requirements. Teacher characteristics used to predict the propensity to receive tenure include years of teaching experience (along with a quadratic term), age, gender, racial/ethnic background, education level, salary, level of effectiveness from the prior school year, and whether they were exempt from receiving an evaluation score in the prior year ("prior year exemption" includes newly entered teachers, teachers on temporary leave, and midyear transfers). School characteristics used to predict propensity scores include the proportion of students within the school who are FRPL-eligible, SPED, ELL, female, and of color; school level; enrollment size; and a Likert-type survey measure for perception of school leadership aggregated to the school-level.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref110">7</reflink>] Thus, we model the probability of treatment, <emph>p</emph>j, using logistic regression as specified in the following model,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mi>p</mi><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mi>P</mi><mfenced><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>Tenure</mtext></mrow><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>∣</mo><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi><mo>,</mo><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">S</mi></mrow></mfenced><mo>=</mo><mi>α</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">j</mi></msub><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">B</mi><mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"><mn>1</mn></mstyle></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">S</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi></msub><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">B</mi><mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"><mn>2</mn></mstyle></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>) where Tenure<emph>jk</emph> indicates tenure status for teacher <emph>j</emph> in school <emph>k</emph>, and <bold><emph>X</emph></bold> and <bold><emph>S</emph></bold> represent vectors of observable teacher and school characteristics, respectively. Appendix A2 contains a regression table that reports on the relationship between the propensity score covariates and tenure eligibility.</p> <p>We then employ an inverse probability weighting (IPW) approach to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) with propensity scores, which involves constructing weights equal to the inverse of their estimated propensity of having received their respective treatments based on observed covariates. The treated participants (tenured teachers) are assigned a weight of</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><msub><mover accent="true"><mi>p</mi><mo>^</mo></mover><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> and the control participants (untenured teachers) a weight equal to the predicted odds of being a treatment case,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mover accent="true"><mi>p</mi><mo>^</mo></mover><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>/</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><msub><mover accent="true"><mi>p</mi><mo>^</mo></mover><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml> ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref112">34</reflink>]). The IPW strategy up-weights cases with observed covariate values more closely matched to those of comparison group cases and down-weights cases whose observed covariate values are <emph>unlike</emph> those of cases in the comparison group. In effect, the IPWRA approach places more weight on probation teachers who are ostensibly more likely to have received tenure (e.g., more veteran teachers new to their district, re-entrants to the workforce, out-of-state transfers) and tenured teachers who have a seemingly lower propensity to receive tenure (e.g., more newly tenured teachers) in order to mitigate observable differences in experience, age, and education level.</p> <p>As displayed in Table 5, our weighting approach achieved covariate balance according to conventional criteria ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref114">32</reflink>]). In the unweighted sample, differences between untenured and tenured teachers were evident with regard to years of teaching experience, age, education level, salary, and prior year level of effectiveness, with standardized differences across both groups of teachers reaching upward of 1.729 (column 3). Several of these differences are unsurprising, as we would expect differences in age and years of experience across both groups, since teachers typically have to be teaching in their district longer in order to become eligible for tenure. However, after the weights were applied, the differences in means diminish substantially, with –0.100 being the largest standardized difference to represent a marginally higher proportion of students of color in schools among the weighted untenured teacher group. Additionally, variance ratios are consistently near unity across all covariates for the weighted sample, which further substantiates adequate balance as the covariates are similarly distributed in the final analytic sample once IPWs are applied.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-13">Outcome Estimation</hd> <p>To estimate the relationship between the latent factors of teacher perceptions of evaluation and teacher tenure status, we use ordinary least squares (OLS) or ordinal logistic regression depending on the nature of the outcome with weights to estimate a model of the form</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>Y</mi><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><msub><mtext>Tenure</mtext><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">j</mi></msub><mi mathvariant="bold">Θ</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">S</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi></msub><mi mathvariant="bold">Ψ</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></math> </ephtml> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>) where the <emph>Yjk</emph> term represents the latent value for perception of evaluation for teacher <emph>j</emph> in school <emph>k</emph> modeled as a function of teacher tenure status. Based on findings from the reviewed literature, we attempt to control for potential determinants of teachers' perception of evaluation, which include observable teacher background characteristics; observable characteristics of a teacher's school environment; and ongoing personnel policies affecting teachers, which not only include tenure (the main point of interest for this study), but also salary and historical performance in the annual evaluation process. These factors are represented by <bold><emph>X<subs>j</subs></emph></bold> and <bold><emph>S<subs>k</subs></emph></bold>, which align with the covariates used to predict the probability of receiving tenure above in model (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>).</p> <p> <bold>Table 5:</bold> Summary statistics by tenure status, unweighted and weighted analytic sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1" /><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1">Mean</th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1">Standardized Difference</th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1">Variance Ratio</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Untenured</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenured</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Raw</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Weighted</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Raw</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Weighted</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Teacher characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Years of teaching experience</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.933</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.249</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.729</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.049</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.148</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.240</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Age</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.567</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">46.920</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.944</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.030</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.961</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.230</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.792</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.834</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.108</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.071</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.840</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.888</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  White</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.890</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.920</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.103</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.752</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.806</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Black</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.078</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.076</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.010</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.079</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.969</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.991</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Education level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Bachelor's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.528</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.314</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.443</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.054</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.865</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.048</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.109</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.298</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.032</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.028</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.087</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  EdS</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.424</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.558</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.270</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.056</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.009</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.016</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  PhD</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.008</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.013</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.051</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.016</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.051</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.889</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Total salary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">42,780</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">52,838</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.894</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.010</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.529</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.867</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Prior level of effectiveness</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 1</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">< 0.001</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.012</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.394</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.532</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 2</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.017</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.007</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.087</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.036</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.442</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.657</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 3</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.158</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.090</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.208</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.073</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.615</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.812</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 4</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.395</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.388</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.014</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.087</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.994</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.969</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 5</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.241</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.497</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.550</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.023</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.367</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.053</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prior year exemption</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.015</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.010</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.046</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.017</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.660</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.840</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>School characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students FRPL-eligible</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.566</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.553</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.056</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.021</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.978</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.988</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students SPED</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.167</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.168</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.020</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.017</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.648</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.053</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students of color</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.343</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.288</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.200</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.100</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.847</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.917</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students ESL</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.124</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.112</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.079</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.013</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.868</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.481</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.483</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.067</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.027</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.681</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.694</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> School level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Elementary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.354</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.397</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.088</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.064</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.046</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.032</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Middle</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.300</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.306</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.014</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.037</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.009</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.033</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  High</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.344</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.297</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.113</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.047</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.925</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.965</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School enrollment</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">770.125</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">747.975</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.093</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.060</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.852</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.879</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Aggregated perception of school leadership</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.013</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.017</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.004</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.014</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.028</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.978</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Obs.</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">6,007</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9,168</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Source: Authors' calculations based on 2016–2017 state administrative data and the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey.</p> <p>The primary coefficient of interest in model (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>) is <emph>β</emph>1, which isolates the relationship between teacher tenure status and differences in teachers' perceptions of evaluation. Drawing on literature on teacher evaluation policy and teacher sensemaking (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref118">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref119">52</reflink>]), we hypothesize that tenure policies can plausibly predict teacher perceptions of evaluation in two alternative and contracting ways. First, a statistically significant and negative estimate of the <emph>β</emph>1 coefficient may indicate that tenured teachers have poorer perceptions of evaluation, as the process may be perceived as less relevant since their position is secured within the district. This scenario would align with a pattern of relationship in which tenure nullifies incentives to improve performance through normative feedback procedures promoted through the evaluation system. Alternatively, a positive estimate on the <emph>β</emph>1 coefficient would support the hypothesis that tenure nullifies the threat of accountability. In this scenario, tenured teachers may have more positive perceptions of the evaluation system, as evaluation has less punitive implications for their job security.</p> <p>We also consider whether teachers who received tenure under the previous tenure system versus the reformed system exhibit different perceptions of evaluation by estimating a modified form of model (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>),</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>Y</mi><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><msub><mtext> OldTenure</mtext><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><msub><mtext> NewTenure</mtext><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">j</mi></msub><mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"><mi>Θ</mi></mstyle><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">S</mi><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi></msub><mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"><mi>Ψ</mi></mstyle><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mrow><mi>j</mi><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></math> </ephtml> where OldTenure<emph>jk</emph> represents a binary indicator for whether teacher <emph>j</emph> received tenure under the previous tenure system (i.e., was teaching in the same district for at least three years in the 2010–2011 academic year); and NewTenurejk term represents a binary indicator for whether teacher <emph>j</emph> received tenure under the reformed tenure system (i.e., began teaching in the Tennessee public school system after 2010–2011, or was not teaching for at least three years in the same district that academic year). Differences in perception are modeled with respect to the base group of untenured teachers. What we might expect to see is that the largest differences in perception arise among teachers tenured under the traditional system. The reformed tenure process systematically weakened permanent forms of job protections for teachers, which in effect reinforces performance and accountability mechanisms embedded within the educator evaluation system that are similar to the pretenure probation period for untenured teachers.</p> <p>Finally, in addition to the main analyses, we explore whether tenure, both preand postreform, differentially predicts teachers' perceptions of evaluation between groups of teachers based on a series of characteristics. We examine differences by teacher race (White, Black, or other racial background), gender (male or female), teaching experience level (6–10 years, 11–20 years, or more than 20 years), and school level (elementary, middle, or high) by conducting a series of subgroup analyses wherein we estimate models (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref122">2</reflink>) separately for each teacher subgroup.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184529457-15">Unadjusted Differences in Perceptions of Evaluation</hd> <p>We first explore the unadjusted relationship between teachers' tenure status and the three measures for teachers' perception of evaluation, which we standardize to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one so that differences can be interpreted as changes in standard deviation units. A lower value on these measures indicate more negative perceptions of the evaluation system. Figure 1 shows unadjusted differences in each of the perception factors, separately by tenure status and years of experience. Descriptively, the observed differences between tenured and untenured teachers' perceptions of evaluation hold when we examine perceptions of evaluation as latent factors rather than individual survey items. On average, perceptions of evaluation among teachers who earned tenure during the prereform period are about 0.27 to 0.40 standard deviations <emph>below</emph> the mean values across all three latent perception factors for untenured teachers. Teachers tenured under the reformed system also appear to have more negative perceptions of the evaluation system, but to a lesser degree than those tenured prior to reform.</p> <p>We also explore how perceptions of evaluation vary according to teachers' years of experience. Years of experience marks a key difference between tenured and untenured teachers, as tenured teachers not only have accumulated years during the probationary period, but also may remain teaching for longer periods of time, given the degree of job security afforded by tenure protections. In addition, years of experience may have a more direct influence on perceptions of evaluation, as more veteran teachers have simply been engaging with the evaluation system for longer than have novice teachers. Figure 1 illustrates a negative—although not quite linear—relationship between years of experience and perceptions of evaluation, such that, as teachers gain more years of experience, their perceptions of evaluation become poorer. This relationship is logical, considering that a primary purpose of teacher evaluation is to develop teachers. Because the highest rates of teacher growth tend to occur in early career stages ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref123">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref124">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref125">27</reflink>]), veteran teachers may have less favorable perceptions of evaluation because they find the system less useful than novice teachers.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1: Unadjusted principal components for perceptions of evaluation.</p> <p>The observed differences shown in Figure 1 show stark contrasts between how tenured and untenured teachers perceive the evaluation system. Given that tenured and untenured teachers are descriptively different along a variety of characteristics, including age, years of teaching experience, and education level (Table 5), the differences presented thus far are largely illustrative, as they do not account for other factors that may influence teacher perceptions. We next turn to our preferred analytical approach, which attempts to account for such confounding factors through a combination of propensity score sample weighting and regression adjustment.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-16">Propensity-Score-Adjusted Results</hd> <p>Table 6 displays IPWRA estimates, which approximate a more unbiased relationship between tenure status and perceptions of evaluation. Odd-numbered columns display estimates from Model (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>), which represent adjusted differences in perception between untenured and tenured teachers, regardless of whether tenure was granted under the old or new system. These results show that the findings in Figure 1 hold for only one of the latent factors—teachers' perception of the practicality of evaluation within their district. We find that tenured teachers have poorer perceptions of evaluation within their district than untenured teachers (β = –0.128, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Though the magnitude of the coefficient is relatively small, it represents a modest effect size, based on similar work in the teacher–student perceptions literature (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref127">22</reflink>]). Columns 1 and 5 show that there are no differences between otherwise observably similar tenured and untenured teachers with regard to their general perceptions of evaluation and their perceptions of TVAAS. These results suggest that while otherwise observably similar tenured and untenured teachers may possess similar views of evaluation and TVAAS in the abstract, their personalized experiences preand posttenure may shape how they view evaluation as it is implemented within their local setting.</p> <p>Table 6 also displays results from Model (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref128">3</reflink>) in even-numbered columns, in which we disaggregate tenure status by type of system (where the old system refers to permanent tenure protection granted prior to the 2011 reform, and the new system refers to tenure contingent on demonstrated effectiveness, per the reform statute). Because the new system substantially weakened tenure protections by linking receipt of tenure to evaluation ratings, we may expect that teachers tenured under the new system will have perceptions of evaluation that are indistinguishable from (or closer to) those of untenured teachers, whereas teachers tenured under the old system may have substantially different views of evaluation, as the process is arguably less pertinent to their job security. Indeed, we find that perceptions differ only among teachers tenured under the old system. In fact, coefficients are negative and statistically significant for both general perceptions (<emph>β</emph> = –0.100, <emph>p</emph> < .05) and district-specific perceptions (<emph>β</emph> = –0.163, <emph>p</emph> < .05) of the practicality of evaluation. On the other hand, the coefficient representing differences in perception for teachers tenured under the new system is statistically indistinguishable from zero across all perception items. Taken together, the estimates reported in Table 6 suggest that teachers whose employment depends on evaluation and demonstrated effectiveness appear to perceive teacher evaluation systems more positively than teachers whose employment is secured regardless of job performance. While the detected differences are small in magnitude, these findings offer initial evidence in support of the hypothesis that receipt of tenure—particularly in its traditional form—weakens the perceived relevance or usefulness of evaluation.</p> <p> <bold>Table 6:</bold> Unstandardized IPWRA Estimates Predicting Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th colspan="2" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1">General Perception of Practicality of Evaluation</th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Perception of Practicality of Evaluation in District</th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Perception of Practicality/Clarity of TVAAS</th></tr><tr><th align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(1)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(2)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(3)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(4)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(5)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.068 (0.066)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.128<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref> (0.065)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.067 (0.058)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure under old system</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.100<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref> (0.045)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.163<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref> (0.073)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.115<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref> (0.066)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure under new system</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.039 (0.071)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.008 (0.072)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.098 (0.065)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Teacher covariates</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">X</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Obs.</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15,027</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15,027</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,726</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,726</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,273</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,273</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.149</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.150</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.259</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.259</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.086</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.088</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Robust standard errors in parentheses. All models weighted by propensity scores as described. Teacher and school covariates not shown include characteristics listed in Table 5 as well as quadratic term for years of teaching experience.</p> <p>1 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>3 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <p>We are also interested in how teachers perceive the burden of evaluation, again testing for differences between tenured and untenured teachers. Table 7 reports results from weighted ordinal logistic regression where the outcome of interest is a measure of teachers' perceptions of the burden of the evaluation system. We do not find statistically significant results for either tenure indicator. It should be noted here that the burden of evaluation measures a fundamentally different concept regarding perceptions of evaluation in comparison to the latent factor. Where the latent factor gauges teachers' perceptions of the usefulness or effectiveness of the evaluation system, the "burden of evaluation" item intends to measure teachers' perceptions regarding the relative cost of evaluation. It is therefore quite reasonable that we do not find statistically significant results for this measure. All teachers must participate in—and to a certain extent, engage with—the evaluation system, regardless of tenure status. Considering the core components of evaluation—student test scores and observations—it is not difficult to imagine that the burden of evaluation is relatively uniform across tenured and untenured teachers. Both groups must prepare students for standardized tests, prepare for classroom observations, participate in postobservation feedback conferences, and meet regularly with instructional coaches. Although tenured teachers may perceive these activities to be less useful or relevant to their careers, they are not able to exercise much choice as to the extent to which they participate in them. Therefore, we would not expect tenure status to play a significant role in altering teachers' perceptions of the burden of evaluation.</p> <p> <bold>Table 7:</bold> Weighted Ordinal Logistic Regression Estimates Predicting Teacher Perception of Burden of Evaluation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="none"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2" colspan="1" /><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(SE)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">OR</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" colspan="3" rowspan="1" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.044</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.068</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.045</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 2)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.954</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.608</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 3)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.439</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.603</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 4)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.998</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.605</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 5)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.281</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.610</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Obs.</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,795</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>X<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">367.61<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Pseudo-<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.024</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure under old system</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.079</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.076</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.081</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tenure under new system</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.068</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.934</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 2)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−1.007</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.611</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 3)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.387</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.606</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 4)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.946</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.609</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intercept (burden = 5)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.230</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.613</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Obs.</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14,795</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>X<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">383.68<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Pseudo-<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.024</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Robust standard errors in parentheses. All models weighted by propensity scores as described. Teacher and school covariates not shown include characteristics listed in Table 5 as well as quadratic term for years of teaching experience. B = beta estimate, SE = standard error, OR = odds ratio. Burden of evaluation coded from 1 = low to 5 = high.</p> <ulist> <item>4 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>5 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>6 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184529457-17">Heterogeneity by Teacher Race, Gender, Experience Level, and School Level</hd> <p>In additional regression analyses , we estimate whether tenure status (earned before and after tenure reform) is differentially associated with teachers' perceptions of evaluation for subgroups of teachers defined by racial/ethnic and gender identity, teaching experience level, and school level (the results for which are presented in appendix Figures A1 through A3). Results from these analyses suggest some notable heterogeneity, as more negative perceptions of evaluation and value added among teachers tenured prereform are largely confined to White, male, more experienced teachers and teachers in middle and high schools. With regard to both general perceptions of evaluation and perceptions of evaluation practice within teachers' respective school districts, White teachers tenured prereform have significantly more negative perceptions than nontenured White teachers, whereas perceptions for non-White teachers do not differ significantly based on tenure status. Similarly, negative perceptions significantly differ between nontenured and tenured (prereform) male teachers as well as middle and high school teachers but do not do so for female or elementary school teachers. When disaggregated by teaching experience level, results suggest perceptions significantly differ between nontenured and tenured (prereform) midcareer teachers (11–20 years experience) but do not do so for more or less experienced teachers. Similar patterns of heterogeneity arise with regard to teachers' perception of value added (i.e., TVAAS); however, differences by experience level are most significant for the most veteran teachers (20 or more years of experience).</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-18">Robustness Checks</hd> <p>To test the robustness of our results, we conducted principal component analysis (PCA) in lieu of factor analysis to construct the analytic measures for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref129">1</reflink>) teachers' general perceptions of evaluation, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref130">2</reflink>) teachers' perceptions of evaluation within their districts, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref131">3</reflink>) teachers' perceptions of TVAAS. The results of the PCA yielded three viable orthogonal dimensions of variation from the teacher survey item responses, which were highly correlated (above 0.95) with the constructs yielded by the main factor analysis. Results remained qualitatively unchanged with regard to direction, significance, and magnitude of point estimates when PCA-constructed measures for teachers perceptions were used.</p> <p>We also employed alternative propensity score matching methods to test the robustness of our results, including nearest-neighbor matching, kernel matching, and propensity score covariate adjustment without weights. For all techniques, we excluded cases that were not within range of common support. Due to the lack of consensus on matching applications for estimating multivalued treatment effects ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>], 2012), we only tested robustness of perceptions between teachers tenured under the old and new systems using the propensity score covariate adjustment approach. Results, as shown in Table 8, are remarkably consistent in magnitude and significance regardless of the matching strategy.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Reforms designed to improve the quality of the teaching workforce have been at the forefront of most states' education policy initiatives. Using evidence from Tennessee—a state that has been leading the charge in terms of prioritizing rigorous educator evaluation and reforms to traditional teacher tenure laws—we explore how tenure status influences teachers' perceptions of the evaluation system. We find evidence of differential attitudes toward teacher evaluation by tenure status. Specifically, we find that tenured teachers have poorer perceptions of evaluation, but that this relationship is largely concentrated among teachers who received tenure prior to the 2011 reform. Being tenured, particularly postreform, is associated with a more unfavorable perceptions of the district-specific evaluation process. Moreover, negative perceptions of evaluation among teachers tenured under the previous system are largely confined to White, male, more experienced, and middle and high school teachers.</p> <p>Our findings specifically contribute to the extant research on teachers' sensemaking of evaluation, which has implications for future research and educational practice for those promoting and advancing systems for teacher development. More specifically, the significant relationship between teacher tenure status and perceptions of evaluation within their districts highlights how the broader tenure policy landscape interplays with teachers' attitudes and beliefs on the formative aspects of evaluation that seeks to enhance teaching practice and boost student learning. Prior research documents the importance of several factors in shaping how teachers make sense of, perceive, and potentially engage with evaluation and feedback under contexts that have recently experienced reform of evaluation for teachers (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref133">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref134">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref135">46</reflink>]). This study extends this research base by showing evidence that tenure, at least in its more traditional form, is also significantly associated with teachers' perceptions of evaluation and their sensemaking of the policy landscape. Future research on teacher evaluation should thus attend to tenure status as a significant predictor in teacher behavior. Moreover, evaluators and school leaders should attend to teachers' tenure status throughout the evaluation process and incentivize systems and interventions to develop and sustain continued engagement with evaluation for more experienced, tenured teachers.</p> <p>Our study also offers important contributions to the literature on the effects of teacher tenure reform. This is the first study to examine the influence of tenure on individual teacher attitudes. Prior research has studied the effects of tenure reform on teacher performance and retention (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref136">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref137">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref138">54</reflink>]). While this prior body of work set the stage for understanding the implications of large-scale tenure reforms, it is largely silent on the ways that changes in tenure policy might be associated with differences in teacher perceptions and attitudes toward evaluation systems—an important area of inquiry, as a substantial number of states have legislated changes to both tenure and evaluation systems for teachers. Claims that awarding tenure works to disincentivize and demotivate teachers are a common refrain for conservative scholars, pundits, and policymakers, and yet our study helps us to understand that this not clear pattern arises within contexts implementing reformed tenure policies for teachers. In contrast, our study reveals some evidence of more negative perceptions of evaluation among teachers with more traditional forms of "lifetime" tenure protection. While, unlike White teachers, teachers of color are not differentially associated with more negative perceptions of evaluation, male teachers are, thus posing some concern that traditional tenure protections induce disengagement with evaluation practice for male teachers, who are generally underrepresented in the profession. Moreover, negative perceptions of evaluation are especially stark among more experienced teachers and teachers at middle and high school grade levels, presenting further evidence that disengagement associated with traditional tenure protections may be uneven, particularly for midcareer teachers who may be more accustomed to traditional human management policies affecting teachers but who are not near the point of retirement.</p> <p> <bold>Table 8:</bold> Robustness checks for alternative analytic approaches</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="1">ATE</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">IPWRA</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1:1 NN Matching</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">K:1 NN Matching</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Kernel Matching</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">P-score Adjustment</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(1)</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(2)</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(3)</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(4)</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(5)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>General perception of practicality of evaluation</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.068</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.049</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.070</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.066)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.087)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.068)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.047)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.046)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under old system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.100<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.101</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.045)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.050)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under new system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.039</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.008</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.071)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.057)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Perception of practicality of evaluation in district</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenure vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.128<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.157<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.135<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.170<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.125<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.065)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.071)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.069)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.055)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.047)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under old system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.163<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.139<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.073)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.051)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under new system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.008</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.095</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.072)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.058)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Perception o fpracticali ty/'clarity ofTVAAS</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenure vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.067</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.014</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.041</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.072</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.058)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.064)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.059)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.043)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.042)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under old system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.115</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.010</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.066)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.045)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1"> Tenured under new system vs. untenured</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.098</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.026</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.065)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.053)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Robust standard errors in parentheses. Teacher covariates not shown include prior-year level of effectiveness, age, education level, race/ethnicity, gender, and salary. Column (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>) displays IPWRA estimates representing weighted regression coefficients, where the weights are computed as the estimated inverse probabilities of treatment. Column (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref140">2</reflink>) displays average treatment effect (ATE) estimates using 1:1 nearest neighbor (NN) matching with a caliper of 0.1 without replacement. Column (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref141">3</reflink>) displays ATE estimates using 4:1 NN matching with a caliper of 0.1 without replacement. Column (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>) displays kernel matching estimates with a bandwidth of 0.6 and a Epanechnikov kernel function. Column (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref143">5</reflink>) displays unweighted regression estimates with covariate adjustment for the probability of treatment.</p> <ulist> <item>7 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>8 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>9 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <p>However, the analyses presented in the study are not without limitations. Although the IPWRA approach considerably reduces bias compared with a standard regression-adjusted approach, unobservable factors nevertheless remain a source of bias, given the absence of longitudinal survey data. Most notably, as the findings from this study are based on a cross section of observational administrative and survey data, they do not definitively distinguish whether differences in perception about the evaluation system are associated with teachers receiving tenure or with unobserved differences between tenured and nontenured teachers, such as prior professional experiences or professional relationships and networks, nor do they control for unobservable systematic differences in cohorts of teachers who entered the workforce postreform. Nevertheless, our analyses support the conclusion that differences in perception are likely associated with either changes in perception as teachers transition to tenure status or broader preferences among more recent candidates of teachers who chose to enter the profession in the current policy landscape, in which evaluation and tenure are inextricably linked. In either circumstance, tenure policies appear to be a crucial exosystem element related to how teachers perceive the evaluation process.</p> <p>In addition, our data do not allow us to examine the extent to which observed differences in teacher perceptions and behavior may be related to different evaluator implementation practices in tenured and untenured groups. For instance, evaluators may spend less time observing, coaching, and providing feedback to tenured teachers, assuming that these teachers are less receptive to feedback and developmental support than nontenured teachers. Alternatively, school leaders may create a culture of evaluation that prioritizes nontenured teachers if they believe that tenured teachers need less developmental support. These issues deserve attention in future work.</p> <p>From a policy perspective, the results are encouraging. Although our findings do suggest that tenure protections are associated with more negative perceptions of evaluation among teachers, which evidences a long-held critique of teacher tenure laws, the negative perceptions of evaluation seem to be concentrated among teachers tenured under the former tenure system, a system that did not take into account measures of teacher performance or effectiveness. Thus, it is plausible to infer that tenure reform in Tennessee is effective in providing an incentive for teachers, even after they receive tenure, to continue to engage with the evaluation system in ways similar to untenured teachers. Relatedly, a primary purpose of tenure reform has been to address criticisms that tenure offers too much cushion for teachers and thus undermines performance mechanisms that motivate teachers to continue to develop and improve their craft over time. By introducing reforms that loosen the protections afforded by tenure—or stated differently, that strengthen the requirements for receiving and keeping tenure status—states such as Tennessee appear to have managed to retain a degree of accountability for teachers embedded within the tenure process without eroding teachers' perceptions of evaluation once they achieve tenure status.</p> <p>More broadly, the findings presented here highlight the importance of espousing a comprehensive treatment of teacher evaluation as a process functioning among various systems involving seemingly unrelated antecedent policies. Moving forward, policymakers formulating and implementing changes to evaluation systems should consider reforms hand in hand with other teacher policies, namely tenure policies affecting teachers. Equally, scholars often examine the implementation and effects of policies in isolation from one another, without regard to the ways in which they may interact to support or counteract their intended policy goals.</p> <p>Although our study provides compelling evidence of differential attitudes toward teacher evaluation by tenure status, it nevertheless leaves important questions unanswered regarding how these differences in attitude translate into changes in teaching practice affecting student learning and development. Do the differential perceptions of evaluation associated with teacher tenure status translate into different patterns of behavior with regard to teacher evaluation and practice? Are tenured teachers, who have poorer perceptions of evaluation, less likely to incorporate evaluation feedback into their instructional practice, compared with untenured teachers? Do newly tenured teachers engage more effectively with the evaluation system and maintain or improve instructional effectiveness over time? Such questions serve as the next logical lines of inquiry to better understand the extent to which tenured teachers engage with the evaluation system to improve practice and student learning. The application of both qualitative and quantitative research methods would be suitable to answer such questions, especially with the availability of longitudinal and observational- and survey-based measures of teacher behavior and instructional practice.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-20">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank the Tennessee Education Research Alliance and the Tennessee Department of Education for helpful feedback. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0184529457-21">Appendix</hd> <p>Graph: Figure A1: Note: Markers displayed represent coefficient estimates obtained from regression models estimated separately for each teacher subgroup, which can be interpreted as the average difference in perceptions between tenured and nontenured teachers for each subgroup. All regression models were weighted based on calculated propensity scores using inverse probability weights and controlled for teacher and school characteristics listed in Table 5. Horizontal lines displayed represent 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Graph: Figure A2: Note: Markers displayed represent coefficient estimates obtained from regression models estimated separately for each teacher subgroup, which can be interpreted as the average difference in perceptions between tenured and nontenured teachers for each subgroup. All regression models were weighted based on calculated propensity scores using inverse probability weights and controlled for teacher and school characteristics listed in Table 5. Horizontal lines displayed represent 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Graph: Figure A3: Note: Markers displayed represent coefficient estimates obtained from regression models estimated separately for each teacher subgroup, which can be interpreted as the average difference in perceptions between tenured and nontenured teachers for each subgroup. All regression models were weighted based on calculated propensity scores using inverse probability weights and controlled for teacher and school characteristics listed in Table 5. Horizontal lines displayed represent 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p> <bold>Table A1:</bold> School-Level Summary Statistics for All TN Public Schools and Analytical Sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="box" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" colspan="1" /><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">All TN Public Schools</th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Analytical Sample</th><th rowspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom" colspan="1">Std.Mean Difference</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th align="center" valign="bottom" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of teachers</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.68</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.758</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.46</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">21.958</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.124</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Teacher characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Average years of teaching experience</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.640</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.134</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.843</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.254</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.055</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Average age</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.666</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.721</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.857</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.581</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.046</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.809</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.166</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.812</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.153</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent White</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.119</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.207</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.110</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.198</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.046</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent Black</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.845</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.254</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.863</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.235</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.073</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent with bachelor's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.420</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.160</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.414</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.133</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.039</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent with master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.474</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.156</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.480</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.128</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.042</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent with more than master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.089</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.113</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.092</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.099</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.024</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Average total salary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49,433.514</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,456.527</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49,383.403</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5,026.086</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.010</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent level 1/2 effectiveness prior year</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.025</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.078</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.021</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.057</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.052</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent level 3 effectiveness prior year</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.151</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.175</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.149</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.162</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.011</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent level 4/5 effectiveness prior year</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.824</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.205</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.830</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.188</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.027</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Percent with prior year exemption</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.041</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.094</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.035</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.062</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.074</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Other school characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students FRPL−eligible</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.594</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.240</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.590</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.237</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.016</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students SPED</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.173</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.096</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.176</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.093</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.030</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students of color</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.366</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.334</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.341</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.316</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.077</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students ESL</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.113</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.159</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.112</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.156</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.006</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.480</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.061</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.479</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.052</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.026</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> School level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Elementary</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.418</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.493</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.423</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.494</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.010</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Middle</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.306</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.461</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.310</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.463</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.009</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  High</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.276</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.447</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.267</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.443</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.020</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School enrollment</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">579.473</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">376.616</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">602.292</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">373.996</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.061</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Aggregated perception of school leadership</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.009</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.563</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.009</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.544</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Obs. (schools)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1,851</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1,663</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Source: Authors' calculations based on 2016–2017 state administrative data and the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey.</p> <p> <bold>Table A2:</bold> Propensity Score Estimates for Tenure Eligibility (Logistic Regression)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="box" rules="none"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2" colspan="1" /><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">B</th><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(SE)</th><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">OR</th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" colspan="3" rowspan="1" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>Teacher characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Years of experience</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.447</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.009 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.563</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Years of experience (squared)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.008</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.000 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.992</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Age</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.012</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.012</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.176</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.049 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.192</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Black</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.079</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.083</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Other</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.008</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.247</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.008</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Education level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Master's</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.114</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.082</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.121</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  EdS</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.033</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.042</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.968</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  PhD</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.191</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.181</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.210</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Total salary (1000s)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.138</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.034 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.871</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> Prior level of effectiveness</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 2</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.038</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.781</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.039</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 3</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.205</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.766</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.227</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 4</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.700</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.765</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.015</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Level 5</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.279</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.766 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">*</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.594</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prior year exemption</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.615</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.186 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.849</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Started teaching prior to tenure reform</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.356</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.047 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.880</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><italic>School characteristics</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students FRPL-eligible</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.101</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.093</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.107</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students SPED</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.081</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.303</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.084</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students of color</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.323</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.089</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.724</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students ESL</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.024</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.571</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.024</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Proportion of students female</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.856</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.586</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.354</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> School level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  Middle</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.232</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.046 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.793</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">  High</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.347</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.052<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.707</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School enrollment (1000s)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.061</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.512<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.941</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Aggregated perception of school leadership</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.088</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.019<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.916</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Constant</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−4.780</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.920 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.008</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Observations</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15,175</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Pseudo-<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.541</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: Robust standard errors shown. B = beta estimate, SE = standard error, OR = odds ratio.</p> <ulist> <item>10 *<emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>11 **<emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>12 ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0184529457-22"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> In July 2011, along with TEAM, the state board approved three alternate teacher evaluation model options for districts that demonstrated satisfactory performance: Project Coach (COACH), Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM), and Teacher Instructional Growth for Effectiveness and Results (TIGER). A fifth model, the Achievement Framework for Excellent Teaching (AFET), was approved and first implemented in the 2012–2013 school year. Because all five evaluation models have a similar structure, and primarily differ in the specifics of their observation rubric domains and the duration and frequency with which classroom observations are conducted, we do not distinguish between evaluation models in our study.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The 2017 TES was designed so that all respondents answered a set of core questions but were then randomly assigned to separate pathways, branches, and modules. Respondents were first assigned a specific survey pathway based on their current roles as administrators, counselors, instructional coaches, support staff members, or teachers. Teachers were then randomly assigned to complete series of additional questions about a specific topic or domain (e.g., <emph>Evaluation</emph> or <emph>Professional Learning</emph>). All teacher respondents reported their tenure status as part of the core teacher survey component of the TES. The <emph>Evaluation</emph> module of the survey asked a subset of teachers a number of questions about the form and level of targeted feedback they received through the annual evaluation process, whether they incorporated the feedback they received into practice, and their perceptions of specific aspects of evaluation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref70" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Fifty-six percent of teachers responded to the 2017 Tennessee Educator Survey. This number represents the response rate for both the core teacher pathway and the <emph>Evaluation</emph> module. Because of the survey's spiral sampling design, the number of respondents on the <emph>Evaluation</emph> module—from which we draw our main analytic measures on teacher perceptions of the evaluation process—reflects 22.4% of the full universe of Tennessee teachers in the 2016–2017 school year.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref71" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Note that the reported 22% does not represent the overall response rate for the 2017 TES. The TES used a spiral sampling design where a subset of teachers are randomized to complete topic-specific survey modules. Since our analysis relies on responses from the <emph>Evaluation</emph> module, our analytical sample is restricted to that subset of teachers, as opposed to all survey respondents for the 2017 TES.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Retention of factors was based on the Mineigen criterion, which requires that only factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 or higher be retained. Given that the third retained factor barely meets this criterion, we nevertheless include it in our analyses but present results related to this factor with caution.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref59" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Factor analyses for teachers were conducted again separately by tenure status. The same one-factor structure was found regardless of tenure status. The factor loadings were very similar across groups.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> We observe a moderate amount of missing data across all observable characteristics (10–12% of the full analytic sample). As the primary approach to accounting for missing data, we chose to include indicators for missing values as additional covariates in our models for the sake of analytic simplicity. However, we also checked the extent to which our analyses were sensitive to missing data, using multiple imputation. All results were imputed and adjusted using multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) following techniques suggested by [50] for continuous and binary covariates (e.g., teacher experience and gender) and [44] for unordered categorical covariates (e.g., teacher race). White, Royston, and Wood (2010) suggest that the number of imputed datasets should (at least) equal the highest Fraction of Missing Information (FMI) percentage for any variable included in the imputation process; imputation diagnostics suggest that the FMI is under 15% for any variable. Therefore, we chose to generate 15 imputed datasets. We find that the magnitude of estimated coefficients and standard errors remain largely unchanged compared with our preferred regression adjustment approach. Results applying multiple imputation are available upon request.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184529457-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects.. Econometrica, 74(1), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2016). Matching on the estimated propensity score.. Econometrica, 84(2), 781–807. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA11293</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bang, H., & Robins, J. M. (2005). Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.. Biometrics, 61(4), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00377.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carruthers, C., Figlio, D., & Sass, T. (2018, May17).. Did tenure reform in Florida affect student test scores? Retrieved from Evidence Speaks Reports website: https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/did-tenure-reform-in-florida-affect-student-test-scores/">www.brookings.edu/research/did-tenure-reform-in-florida-affect-student-test-scores/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clipa, O. (2011). Teacher perceptions on teacher evaluation: The purpose and the assessors within the assessment process.. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref123" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects.. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref124" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects.. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2010.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy.. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danielson, C. (2011, December1).. Evaluations that help teachers learn. Retrieved from Educational Leadership website: https://<ulink href="http://www.ascd.org/el/articles/evaluations-that-help-teachers-learn">www.ascd.org/el/articles/evaluations-that-help-teachers-learn</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession.. Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1086/461466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2013).. Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Pease, S. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature.. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053003285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. R., Ellett, C. D., & Annunziata, J. (2002). Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations.. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021791907098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., & Flast, R. (1995).. Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Putnam.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT.. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doherty, K. M. & Jacobs, S. (2015).. State of the states 2015: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donaldson, M. L. (2012).. Teachers' perspectives on evaluation reform. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donaldson, M. L. (2020).. Multidisciplinary perspectives on teacher evaluation: Understanding the research and theory. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making.. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01189290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egalite, A. J.,& Kisida, B. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students' academic perceptions and attitudes.. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717714056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellett, C. D., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA.. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025083214622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finster, M., & Milanowski, A. (2018). Teacher perceptions of a new performance evaluation system and their influence on practice: A within- and between-school level analysis.. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 41. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, T. G. (2018). Pointing teachers in the wrong direction: Understanding Louisiana elementary teachers' use of Compass high-stakes teacher evaluation data.. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9280-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan, M. (2001).. The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone's doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness?.. Journal of Human Resources, 42(4), 765–794. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.4.765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldhaber, D., Hansen, M., & Walch, J. (2016).. Time to tenure: Does tenure reform affect teacher absence behavior and ability? Working Paper 172. Retrieved from National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573188.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldhaber, D., & Walch, J. (2016). Teacher tenure: Fog warning.. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(6), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716636864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010).. Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Los Angeles: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence.. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research.. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heneman, H. G., III, & Milanowski, A. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system.. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PEEV.0000032427.99952.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppescu, S. (2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago's REACH students.. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, M. D. (2015). How do teachers respond to tenure?.. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 4, article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40172-015-0024-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J., & Youngs, P. (2016). Promoting instructional improvement or resistance? A com- parative study of teachers' perceptions of teacher evaluation policy in Korea and the USA.. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1057478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J., Sun, M., & Youngs, P. (2019). Developing the "will": The relationship between teachers' perceived policy legitimacy and instructional improvement.. Teachers College Record, 121(3), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimball, S. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems.. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 241–268. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021787806189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M. A., Brunner, E. J., Dougherty, S. M., & Schwegman, D. J. (forthcoming). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers.. Journal of Public Economics, 188. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Performance screens for school improvement: The case of teacher tenure reform in New York City.. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G., III (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study.. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012752725765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1996).. Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raghunathan, T. E., Lepkowski, J. M.,Van Hoewyk, J. & Solenberger, P. (2001). A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models.. Survey Methodology, 27(1), 85–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Dudek, C. M., Peters, S., Alperin, A., Kettler, R. J., & Kurz, A. (2018). Teachers' and school administrators' attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: A preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts.. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9263-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riordan, J., Lacireno-Paquet, N., Shakman, K., Bocala, C., & Chang, Q. (2015).. Redesigning teacher evaluation: Lessons from a pilot implementation (REL 2015–030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, L. A. (2020). Understanding tenure reform: An examination of sense-making among school leaders and teachers.. Teachers College Record, 122(11), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012201112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, L. A. & Springer, M. G., & Shelton, G. (2019).. Transforming the pool of tenured teachers: Descriptive evidence from Tennessee. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Education Research Alliance. https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/TERA/Transforming_Tenure.php</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D., (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.. Biometrika. 70, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, D. B. (1987).. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, E. R., & Smin, G. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context.. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36002-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane, J. P. (1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making.. Educational Policy, 13(4), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904899013004004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiner, P. M. (2010). Book review: S., Guo & M. W., Fraser, Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications.. Psychometrika, 75(4), 775–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9170-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strunk, K. O., Barret, N., & Lincove, J. A. (2017).. When tenure ends: The short-run effects of the elimination of Louisiana's teacher employment protections on teacher exit and retirement. New Orleans: Education for Research Alliance of New Orleans.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance.. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628–3651. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3628. Tennessee Code Title 49. Education §§ 49-5-501–515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuma, A. P., Hamilton, L. S., & Tsai, T. (2018).. A nationwide look at teacher perceptions of feedback and evaluation systems. Retrieved from RAND Corporation website: https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RR2558.html">www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RR2558.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2009). Teachers' perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A validity study of the Policy Characteristics Scale.. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 924–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanblaere, B. (2020). An integral perspective on teacher evaluation: A review of empirical studies.. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(2), 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09321-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Government Accountability Office. (2013).. Race to the Top: States implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems despite challenges. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657936.pdf">www.gao.gov/assets/660/657936.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Education (2009).. Race to the Top program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557422.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice.. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition.. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winters, M. A. (2012).. Transforming tenure: Using value-added modeling to identify ineffective teachers. Civic Report 70. New York: Center for State and Local Leadership.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, M. E., & Wasserman, E. A. (2005). Theories of learning. In K., Lamberts & R. L., Goldstone (Eds.). Handbook of Cognition, (pp. 161–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608177.n6</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Luis A. Rodriguez; Karin Gegenheimer and Matthew G. Springer</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, is an assistant professor of education leadership at New York University. His research focuses on the K–12 teacher labor market and policies intended to improve quality, retention, and diversity within the teaching workforce.</p> <p>Karin Gegenheimer, PhD, is the Coordinator of Research and Evaluation at the Gwinnett County Public School District and a graduate of the leadership and policy studies doctoral program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. Her research interests include educator evaluation and school leadership.</p> <p>Matthew G. Springer, PhD, is the Robena and Walter E. Hussman, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Education, Evaluation, and Public Policy and the chair of the education policy and organizational leadership area. He specializes in education policy with a focus on the role of accountability and incentives in K–16 education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1373307
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Examination of Tenure and Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation: Evidence from Tennessee
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rodriguez%2C+Luis+A%2E%22">Rodriguez, Luis A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gegenheimer%2C+Karin%22">Gegenheimer, Karin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Springer%2C+Matthew+G%2E%22">Springer, Matthew G.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+Human+Resources%22"><i>Journal of Education Human Resources</i></searchLink>. Apr 2023 41(2):251-292.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: University of Toronto Press. 5201 Dufferin Street, Toronto, ON M3H 5T8, Canada. Tel: 416-667-7810; Fax: 800-221-9985; Fax: 416-667-7881; e-mail: journals@utpress.utoronco.ca; Web site: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/jehr
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 42
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tenure%22">Tenure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Surveys%22">State Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Teachers%22">Middle School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Teachers%22">High School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race%22">Race</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tennessee%22">Tennessee</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.3138/jehr-2021-0050
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2562-783X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The utility of teacher evaluation depends on meaningful teacher engagement with evaluation processes. However, critics of traditional tenure policies suggest that tenure nullifies teacher engagement with practices to improve performance. This study investigates whether tenured teachers exhibit perceptions that reflect disengagement with evaluation and feedback and whether perceptions of evaluation vary based on teachers having received tenure under a reformed system that restricts lifetime protections conditional on continual high evaluation scores. Using statewide administrative and survey data from Tennessee, the study employs propensity score methods to isolate differences in perceptions between comparable groups of tenured and untenured teachers. Results show that tenured teachers report more negative perceptions of evaluation in their district; however, this difference is concentrated among those who received permanent tenure status prior to the reformed tenure system. The study concludes by discussing implications and directions for future research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1373307
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1373307
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.3138/jehr-2021-0050
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 42
        StartPage: 251
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tenure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tennessee
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Examination of Tenure and Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation: Evidence from Tennessee
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rodriguez, Luis A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gegenheimer, Karin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Springer, Matthew G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2562-783X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 41
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education Human Resources
              Type: main
ResultId 1