








Purpose: The study examines why the logic of a performance management system, supported by the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, might be faulty. It does this by exploring the nuances of the interplay between teaching evaluations as formative and summative, the use of procedures, tools, and artifacts obligated by the local Teacher Incentive Fund system, and bonus payments as extrinsic motivators. Research Methods: The study is a qualitative longitudinal study in three public charter schools that were selected as a presumably conducive environment for incentive-driven performance management. Eight rounds of semistructured interviews, 130 interviews, and 65 hours of meeting observations are the data for this study. Findings: In the three charter schools, the adoption period was characterized by consonance, the belief that the performance management system served valued purposes. In midlife, dissonance set in. Performance contingencies attached to both bonus and external evaluations were perceived as disconfirming the values of the schools. Incentives and status competition were largely rebuffed and relegated to the periphery. Once the power of incentives became latent, a period of resonance set in. Administrators and teachers came to interact with the two main artifacts, videos of lessons and the Summative Evaluation of Teaching observation tool, in ways that afforded new learning. Implications for Research and Practice: The study suggests that research insights can be gained when logics of complex performance management systems are disentangled and competing dynamics deliberately studied. Practically speaking, when schools try to maintain a rich collegial culture, incentives may crowd out the use of teaching evaluations for formative learning.
