Teacher accountability, datafication, and evaluation: A case for reimagining schooling Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 9/4/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 2/1/2020 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 2/20/2020 SPECIAL ISSUE Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 28 Number 56 April 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Teacher Accountability, Datafication and Evaluation: A Case for Reimagining Schooling1 Jessica Holloway Research for Educational Impact (REDI) Centre, Deakin University Australia Citation: Holloway, J. (2020). Teacher accountability, datafication, and evaluation: A case for reimagining schooling. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(56). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5026 This article is part of the special issue, Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation, guest edited by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley. Abstract: The purpose of this commentary is to push the boundaries (real and perceived) of how we think about teacher accountability, education and the purpose of schooling in contemporary times. It takes as a starting point a view that recent changes to the Every Student Succeeds Act does little to shift the underpinning logics of high -stakes teacher accountability that ultimately threaten the stability and adaptability of public schools. Building from this presumption, it explores more universal features of contemporary schooling practices (e.g., standardization, datafication and evaluation) that undermine 1 This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [grant number DE190101140]: Jessica Holloway. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5026 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 teacher expertise, autonomy and professional discretion. The purpose is to provide a new lens for thinking about the role of education and to radically disrupt the ‘norms’ we have come to accept as necessary features of modern schooling. Ultimately, it serves as a thought experiment to provide some space for imagining new possibilities and thinking “outside of” the traditional accountability “box.” Keywords: accountability; datafication; teacher evaluation; Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability de los maestros, datification y evaluación: Un caso para reinventar la escolarización Resumen: El propósito de este comentario es ampliar los límites (reales y percibidos) de cómo pensamos acerca de la accountability de los maestros, la educación y el propósito de la educación en los tiempos contemporáneos. Toma como punto de partida una visión de que los cambios recientes a la Every Student Succeeds Act hacen poco para cambiar las lógicas subyacentes de la accountability de los maestros de alto riesgo que en última instancia amenazan la estabilidad y la adaptabilidad de las escuelas públicas. Partiendo de esta presunción, explora características más universales de las prácticas escolares contemporáneas (por ejemplo, estandarización, datos y evaluación) que socava n la experiencia docente, la autonomía y la discreción profesional. El propósito es proporcionar una nueva lente para pensar sobre el papel de la educación y perturbar radicalmente las “normas” que hemos llegado a aceptar como características necesarias de la escuela moderna. En última instancia, sirve como un experimento mental para proporcionar algo de espacio para imaginar nuevas posibilidades y pensar “fuera de” la “caja” de accountability tradicional. Palabras-clave: Accountability; datafication; evaluación docente; Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability dos professores, datification, e avaliação: Um caso para reinventar a escolarização Resumo: O objetivo deste comentário é expandir os limites (reais e percebidos) de como pensamos sobre a accountability dos professores, a educação e o objetivo da educação nos tempos contemporâneos. Ele assume como ponto de partida que mudanças recentes na Every Student Succeeds Act pouco contribuem para alterar as lógicas subjacentes da accountability dos professores de alto risco, que acabam ameaçando a estabilidade e a adaptabilidade das escolas. público. Com base nessa premissa, ele explora características mais universais das práticas escolares contemporâneas (por exemplo, padronização, dados e avaliação) que minam a experiência de ensino, a autonomia e a discrição profissional. O objetivo é fornecer uma nova lente para pensar sobre o papel da educação e perturbar radicalmente as “normas” que passamos a aceitar como características necessárias da escola moderna. Por fim, serve como um experimento mental para fornecer algum espaço para imaginar novas possibilidades e pensar “fora” da “caixa” da accountability tradicional. Palavras-chave: Accountability; datafication; avaliação docente; Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) Teacher accountability, datification, and evaluation 3 Teacher Accountability and Evaluation Three years ago, I left my academic position in the US for one in Australia. While the geographic distance was obviously immense, it was the cultural and professional differences that I found most confronting. Studying teacher accountability in Australia – after many years of living and researching it in the US – was both eye-opening and productive for pushing my thinking around what is, and what might be, in education. Perhaps most importantly, I realized that what I had come to understand about education policy (particularly teacher accountability) had been shaped by American perspectives, conditions and research. It is no real secret that U.S. education research is notoriously insular, yet I still found myself amazed by the extent to which my ability to comprehend alternative versions of policy were constrained by my previous experiences. The acceptance of my own naivety led me to question the assumptions I held about education more broadly. Furthermore, I began to consider how I could embrace the discomfort and de-center my understanding of “normal,” in order to re-imagine what might else be possible. With this view in mind, I write the following commentary about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (i.e., Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA]). As part of a special issue devoted to re-thinking teacher evaluation under ESSA, I aim to accomplish two things with this commentary. First, I argue that, while measured critiques of ESSA-related policies and outcomes are critically important (see, for example, Close, Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2018), it is equally important to offer alternative critiques that more radically disrupt the accepted norms and logics that we have come to accept as necessary features of modern schooling. To this point, I start by re- situating the teacher evaluation critique within an international landscape. I do this to highlight how focusing narrowly on technical changes to policy and practice (e.g., shifting authority back to the states; minimizing the use of student test scores to measure teacher quality, etc.) limits our capacity to imagine fundamentally different versions of schooling. I draw on the growing subfield of “datafication” (Kitchin, 2014; Lupton, 2018; Selwyn, 2015; Williamson, 2017a) to illustrate how evolving and emerging data-related techniques and technologies are dramatically undermining teacher expertise and authority, regardless of changes under ESSA. Then, I attempt to make a case for why urgent re-articulations of schooling are necessary in present times. I follow calls from scholars who see current trends in education, such as the hyper- focus on standardization, evaluation and datafication of schooling, as contributing to a number of global crises (Hursh, Henderson & Greenwood, 2015; Silova, Komatsu & Rappleye, 2018). Thus, I argue that the present time urgently demands a radical re-thinking of education, not only because of the dangers associated with excessive datafication (described below), but also because of pressing social and political challenges that require collective action. Datafication of Education Contemporary teacher accountability systems globally have become rooted in testing, evaluation and dis/incentivization as means for shaping teacher practice and defining teacher ‘quality’ (Berliner 2018; Lingard, 2010; Smith 2016). In the name of equity, student protection, and global competitiveness, high-stakes accountability practices have steadily weakened teacher expertise, authority and professionalism by constraining the capacity for teachers to exercise professional discretion (Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2017; Hardy, 2018; Perryman, 2009). In the US, for example, teachers are not only responsible for complying with multiple strands of standards, including content (e.g., Common Core State Standards), teaching (e.g., InTASC standards), and discipline-specific standards (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/English), but they Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 must also fulfill requirements for evaluation frameworks and rubrics (e.g., Danielson Framework for Teaching) associated with state- and/or federal-level policies (Garver, 2018; Taubman, 2009). New policy changes, such as those associated with ESSA, minimize some federal controls over teacher evaluation. However, despite these technical changes to accountability, there is a burgeoning market of new digital technologies (e.g., data dashboards, observation apps, etc.) that subject teachers to unprecedented levels of surveillance and control (Buchanan & McPherson, 2019; Lupton & Williamson, 2017). While these technologies are not technically associated with federal policies, they do operate synchronously with such policies because of their data-orientation. One example of such interaction is how digital technologies have provided a platform for schools to engage in the “data-driven” practices that many accountability policies require. Steadily, data-based technologies have become a ubiquitous presence in education (Selwyn, 2015). A growing subfield of education researchers are calling this the “datafication” of education, where every aspect of schooling, students, teachers, etc., is rendered as data to be collected, analyzed, surveilled, and controlled (Bradbury 2019; Bradbury & Guy-Holmes, 2018; Buchanan & McPherson, 2019; Selwyn, 2015; Williamson, 2017a). The “datafied teacher,” in particular, faces increased pressures to rely on numerical data (e.g., standardized achievement tests, value-added model output) and evaluative tools (e.g., observation rubrics) to guide their pedagogical decisions and classroom practices (Holloway, 2019; Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2017; Hardy, 2018). In these data environments, the “quality” of the teacher is narrowly defined by numbers, while “improvement” is defined as increasing these numbers, rather than improving practice and fostering collaboration (Perryman, 2009; Taubman, 2009). Similar negative consequences have been extensively studied and attributed to high-stakes testing systems for decades (see Amrein-Beardsley & Berliner, 2011; Hursh, 2008; Taubman, 2009). However, the “datafication” turn marks a distinct impact on the “professional teacher,” as digital data techniques proliferate our reliance on, access to, and ability to capture more data about teachers and their practice than ever before. Datafication scholars suggest that our fundamental understanding of individual people (in this case, teachers) becomes entangled with these data pictures (Lupton & Williamson, 2017; Selwyn, 2015) insofar as a teacher’s data profile begins to supersede the actual teacher as the main site of surveillance and control (Thompson & Cook, 2014). This shift in focus has significant implications for teacher expertise, authority and accountability. In a broad sense, the datafication of education is increasingly dependent on large datasets and the same logics that “big data” analytics, such as “algorithmic governance” (Beer, 2017; Kitchin, 2014). While not all forms of datafication require large datasets per se, quantifiable measures of performance and predictive analytics are the prevailing features of datafied schools. As such, the types of knowledge that are increasingly accepted as “true” measures of student and teacher performance are constructed not between a teacher and student, but by data engineers sitting at computers, miles away from the classroom. Not only does this third-party involvement undermine teacher professional discretion, it also raises serious questions about (1) how vendors can be held accountability, (2) what sorts of financial and other private interests might conflict with the interests of the public, and (3) how teacher and student data privacy can be ensured. Despite these potential dangers, datafication is, arguably, an inevitable part of our lives. In fact, most of our social existence is datafied, to some extent, which is only possible because of the data that we ourselves regularly submit to various programs (Lupton, 2018; van Dijck, 2014). In schools, datafication is only made possible because years of ripe conditions have normalized surveillance and the quantification of schooling matters. For example, previous policy infrastructures in the US, such as standardized testing systems and performance monitoring of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2003), or value-added models and frequent observations of Race to the Top (2009), have put in place material and symbolic conditions that make data collection and monitoring a part Teacher accountability, datification, and evaluation 5 of our everyday practice in schools (Taubman, 2009). Even while specific policies, like NCLB and ESSA, bend and morph over time,2 the logics that underpin them, and the infrastructures built to sustain them, enable new techniques and technologies to emerge. What this means is that once ideas and practices become normalized, then new, perhaps more invasive, varieties become possible. For now, seemingly innocuous technologies, like online data dashboards or popular classroom communication platforms that connect teachers and parents (e.g., ClassDojo; Williamson, 2017b) may not seem that bad. However, recent technologies present additional questions about where the limits of datafication should be drawn. These include, for example, Pakistan experimenting with biometrics to track and reduce teacher absenteeism and China using cameras to allow parents to monitor their child’s classroom (UNESCO, 2017). Others include wearable technologies that track student/teacher location, eye-tracking devices that measure engagement, artificial intelligence (AI) that assesses students’ work, and so on. While such technologies might seem rather extreme right now, it is important to recognize that these intrusions are only possible because of previous conditions that have normalized surveillance and control. Simultaneously, imagining alternative versions of our constructed and accepted “reality” becomes very difficult. This presents interesting questions about the degree to which “datafication” might transform education. While fears about constant data surveillance and tracking might be easily dismissed as dystopian, it is worth considering how ideas and technologies adapt from known and accepted norms. Re-imagining Education The prevalence of numbers, metrics and data within education is consistent with modern, Westernized views of “what counts” as knowledge more broadly (Silova, 2019; Sterling et al., 2018). There is an epistemological and ontological view that our problems and solutions of the world can be understood through statistical calculations (see Gorur, 2014). Criticizing this view, Silova, Komatsu, and Rappleye (2018) boldly asserted that: As we prepare to face the climate change catastrophe, we need to radically rethink our starting assumptions about modern mass schooling – ones rooted in the ‘modernist Western paradigm’ (Sterling et al., 2018) – and consider whether education is in fact a solution or a cause of the trouble we now face (2018, n.p.). They, like many critical scholars, have argued that we are in a moment of crisis that demands urgent, collective action (Hursh, et al., 2015; Komatsu, Rappleye & Silova, 2019; Subedi & Daza, 2008). Issues like climate change, the rise of populism, far-right extremism, white supremacy, and so on, require collective efforts that are thoroughly incompatible with values like individualism, competition, standardization, and rapid, endless growth, which currently characterize education. Schools might seem like an unlikely site to address these problems, but, historically, schools are where values-based debates have been fought (see, for example, Au, 2008; Carlson & Apple, 1999; Giroux, 1992). Relevant here are modes of datafication that threaten to not only dismantle education as a public good, but exacerbate the crises that democracies face on a global scale (see Zuboff, 2018 on the effects of datafication on the global economy). Thus, I urge readers who are interested in understanding the implications of ESSA (or any policy) to not automatically accept that we must remain within a data-thinking bubble (see also Hursh et al., 2015). For example, there is a growing number of educators who call for not only teaching about the environment, but to use the ethos of 2 Even in the US, some states are beginning to reduce their reliance on rigid, test-based accountability to measure teacher performance (see Ross & Walsh, 2019). Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 sustainability to re-imagine what schools might look like. Borrowing from Holt’s (2002) original call for “slow schools” (based on the “slow food” movement), some educators are rejecting the idea that education should only be about economic utility at the expense of working collectively to solve environmental and other social problems (Mortlock, 2018; Tanti, n.d.; Wilby, 2019). From “Forest Schools” in Scandinavia, to “Enviroschools” in New Zealand and “Bush Kinders” in Australia, we have numerous examples of how education can privilege natural surroundings and resources over standardized classroom materials and environments (Alcock & Ritchie, 2018; Sandseter & Lysklett 2017). To do this, we can, and should, look to paradigms (e.g., Indigenous knowledges, de- colonizing theories, spiritual traditions, etc.) that offer alternative, socially-just, and democratically- oriented imaginaries of schooling. Rather than romanticize the past or assume that we ever truly had socially just schools, I ask that we look forward to imagine what schools might look like if we were to completely abandon our fixation on the standardization, datafication and evaluation. Admittedly, this is not pragmatic, nor is it intended to offer a simple solution. Rather, it is meant as an invitation to consider how might education be reimagined if we saw the “datafied” onto-epistemic paradigm (see Lupton, 2018) for what it is—a single framework that has, in many ways, trapped our way of thinking about what school is, and what it can be. References Alcock, S., & Ritchie, J. (2018). Early childhood education in the outdoors in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0009-y Au, W. (2008). Between education and the economy: High-stakes testing and the contradictory location of the new middle class. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802148941 Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147 Bradbury, A. (2019). Datafied at four: the role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood education in England. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577 Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2017). The Datafication of Primary and Early Years Education: Playing with Numbers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315279053 Buchanan, R., & McPherson, A. (2019). Teachers and learners in a time of big data. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 6(1). Carlson, D., & Apple, M. (1999). Power/knowledge/pedagogy: The meaning of democratic education in unsettling times. Westview Press. Close, K., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Collins, C. (2018). State-level assessments and teacher evaluation systems after the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act: Some steps in the right direction. Nation Education Policy Center (NEPC). Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/state-assessment Foucault, Michel. (2003). The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984. The New Press. Garver, R. (2019). Evaluative relationships: teacher accountability and professional culture. Journal of Education Policy, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1566972 Giroux, H. A. (1992). Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021004004 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0009-y https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802148941 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315279053 http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/state-assessment https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1566972 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021004004 Teacher accountability, datification, and evaluation 7 Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.58 Hardy, I. (2018). Governing teacher learning: understanding teachers’ compliance with and critique of standardization. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1325517 Holloway, J. (2019). Teacher evaluation as an onto-epistemic framework. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(2), 174-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1514291 Hursh, D. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning. Rowman & Littlefield. Hursh, D., Henderson, J., & Greenwood, D. (2015). Environmental education in a neoliberal climate. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1018141 Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481 Komatsu, H., Rappleye, J., & Silova, I. (2019). Culture and the Independent Self: Obstacles to environmental sustainability? Anthropocene, 26: 1-13. 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100198 Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508481003731026 Lupton, D. (2018). How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786314 Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02 / Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903125129 Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2019). State of the States 2019: Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy. National Council on Teacher Quality. Sandseter, E. B. H., & Lysklett, O. B. (2017). Outdoor education in the Nordic region. In C. Ringsmose & G. Kragh-Müller (Eds.), Nordic social pedagogical approach to early years (pp. 115– 132). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42557-3_7 Silova, I., Komatsu, H., & Rappleye, J. (2018). Facing the climate change catastrophe: Education as solution or cause? [Blog post]. Network for International Policies and Cooperation in Education and Training (NORRAG). Available at: https://www.norrag.org/facing-the-climate-change- catastrophe-education-as-solution-or-cause-by-iveta-silova-hikaru-komatsu-and- jeremy-rappleye/ Subedi, B., & Daza, S. L. (2008). The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701845731 Takayama, K., Sriprakash, A., & Connell, R. (2017). Toward a postcolonial comparative and international education. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S1-S24. https://doi.org/10.1086/690455 Taubman, P. M. (2010). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879511 Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Manipulating the data: Teaching and NAPLAN in the control society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739472 https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.58 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1325517 https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1514291 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1018141 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100198 https://doi.org/10.1080/17508481003731026 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786314 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328 http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903125129 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42557-3_7 https://www.norrag.org/facing-the-climate-change-catastrophe-education-as-solution-or-cause-by-iveta-silova-hikaru-komatsu-and-jeremy-rappleye/ https://www.norrag.org/facing-the-climate-change-catastrophe-education-as-solution-or-cause-by-iveta-silova-hikaru-komatsu-and-jeremy-rappleye/ https://www.norrag.org/facing-the-climate-change-catastrophe-education-as-solution-or-cause-by-iveta-silova-hikaru-komatsu-and-jeremy-rappleye/ https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701845731 https://doi.org/10.1086/690455 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879511 https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739472 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 Wilby, P. (2019). Eton master who wants pupils to learn very slowly. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/13/eton-master-wants-pupils-learn- slow-education-mike-grenier Williamson, B. (2017a). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920 Williamson, B. (2017b). Learning in the 'platform society': Disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education, 98(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717723389 About the Author Jessica Holloway Research for Educational Impact (REDI) Centre at Deakin University (Melbourne, Australia) Jessica.holloway@deakin.edu.au ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-3197 Jessica Holloway, Ph.D. is an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow within the Research for Educational Impact (REDI) Centre at Deakin University (Melbourne, Australia). Her DECRA project, entitled “The Role of Teacher Expertise, Authority and Professionalism in Education,” investigates the role of education in modern democratic societies, with a particular focus on teachers and teacher expertise. Her work has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Education Policy and Critical Studies in Education. She is currently writing a book called Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy: Critiquing Fundamentalism and Imagining Pluralism (Springer, 2020). About the Guest Editor Audrey Amrein-Beardsley Arizona State University audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, PhD., is a Professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the use of value-added models (VAMs) in and across states before and since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). More specifically, she is conducting validation studies on multiple system components, as well as serving as an expert witness in many legal cases surrounding the (mis)use of VAM-based output. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920 https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717723389 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-3197 mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Teacher accountability, datification, and evaluation 9 SPECIAL ISSUE Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation education policy analysis archives Volume 28 Number 56 April 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevenot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Teacher accountability, datification, and evaluation 11 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Carmuca Gómez-Bueno (Universidad de Granada), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Antonia Lozano-Díaz (University of Almería), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo- Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), César Lorenzo Rodríguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vo 28 No. 56 SPECIAL ISSUE 12 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado, (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro), Maria Lúcia Rodrigues Muller (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso e Science), Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil