Political and Symbolic Reframing

Teacher observation, evaluation, and professional development take on a fresh view when
analyzed through political and symbolic lenses. Although rarely discussed and contemplated
when considering teacher evaluations, external and internal politics heavily influence schools.
Likewise, symbolic components of a school are very influential in how various stakeholders
experience their work.
When considering the backlash of veteran and new teachers to the evaluation process, the
recent changes in external politics cannot be overlooked. Within the last five years, there have
been the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the transition to the MSTEP, which
features classroom activities and performance tasks. Politically, there is also a great deal of
responsibility being placed upon teachers from the state of Michigan. Starting with the school
year 2011 - 2012, our district adjusted our teacher evaluation tools to meet Michigan state law,
which requires a rigorous and fair evaluation system (Michigan Department of Education, 2014).
Student performance was incorporated as a component of the teacher evaluation. This was an
unprecedented amount of accountability for teachers.
The Michigan Department of Education released educator evaluation surveys in 2013,
which indicated that the largest factor in evaluations was instructional practices and that the
majority of schools were either using Charlotte Danielsons or Marzanos framework (Michigan
Department of Education, 2014). Our observation tool was once more altered with a
rededication to rigorous instructional practices and was linked to a professional development
focus on quality instruction. These external politics caused a shift from an underbound system to
an overbound system with highly concentrated power and tight regulation (Bolman, 1999,
p.204). This shift was rather abrupt for educators who had been in the field for twenty or more

years. Similarly, this was a difficult shift for new educators who were entering a field with much
oversight and scrutiny.
Internally, there are also politics that contribute to the negative attitude towards the
evaluation system. Individuals and departments compete for power within an organization
(Bolman, 1999, p.206). Within the last two years, myself and the other principal both were
promoted into administration over other more veteran teachers. Younger, less experienced
individuals critiquing veteran work caused resentment. With subpar observations, teachers felt
as through all of their prior years of service were being called into question by those who are
newer to the field.
Internally, the other political challenge for some of the teachers involves a lack of power
in the evaluation process. Many veteran teachers transitioned from a public school with strong
unions to a charter school without union representation. They viewed the observation tool as
unilaterally passed, which contradicts their prior career history of checks, balances, and
negotiating. Veteran and new teachers alike were very fearful for their job security and their
salaries, while feeling powerless about the changes occurring. They were echoing the statewide
contention that the aim of the new evaluation system was to aggressively weed out ineffective
teaching and to reward those who are highly effective with performance based pay. According to
the U.S. Department of Education, a multi-year study of twelve districts found that teachers in a
school with performance-based pay experienced lower morale and lower quality interaction with
colleagues (Max, 2004, p.13). Our teachers are demonstrating these same tendencies.
There are also reasons highlighted in the symbolic framework that explain why teachers
were not receptive to the observation feedback provided. According to Bolman and Deal (1999),
an organizations values and vision bring cohesiveness, clarity, and direction in the presence of

confusion (p.288). There was certainly major confusion and upheaval with new standards to
teach, a shift in instructional approaches, and new assessments being rendered. The rug was
being ripped out from underneath teachers and there was not a clearly articulated vision by the
school in regards to these changes.
Our professional development theme was on quality instruction, yet the broadness of our
theme resulted in breadth over depth. We reviewed multiple components such as higher depth of
knowledge questioning, student-centered learning, frequent formative assessments, closure, the
use of technology, and collaborative work. Teachers were overwhelmed with the changes to the
observation tool and with the expected changes in all facets of their lessons. To add fuel to the
fire, quality instruction is an ambiguous theme that subtly implied that the new approach was of
high quality and the former was of low quality.
As the focus of our year became muddled, so too did the rationale behind it. There was
not a concerted effort to explain what prompted these changes and why it was necessary to adjust
at this point in time. According to Bolman and Deal (1999), political pressure can cause a
multiplicity of goals, many of which are in conflict (p.199). As administration, our goal was to
improve teacher instruction and prepare students for the Common Core skills tested upon so that
they would be successful in college. On the other hand, the teachers viewed the goals of
evaluations as deterring teacher laziness and keeping teachers striving for an unobtainable highly
effective rating.
While the perception of the goals of evaluation were disconnected, so too were teachers
goals within the classroom and the district goal of quality instruction. Many teachers are devoted
to their content knowledge, rather than Common Core State Standard skills applicable to all
subjects. Our teachers entered the field to share their knowledge, rather than to act as a

facilitator. Veteran teachers, specifically, have ingrained methods of teaching that aim to depart
knowledge and prepare students for college lectures, rather than preparing them for higher order
thinking.
When embarking on this quest of teacher evaluation once more, I will be certain to make
changes to ensure increased buy-in. Politically, there is nothing that can be done to alter the
external pressures of the Common Core State Standards, the new teacher evaluation laws, and
the transition to more rigorous testing. Yet, fostering understanding can mitigate the fear
accompanying such changes.
Teachers need to be provided with exposure to the laws governing the new teacher
evaluation process, the new standards, and the new standardized tests. This needs to be an
external professional development opportunity. A member from the Michigan Department of
Education or Wayne RESA would be excellent at providing an outside voice. This would dually
provide clarity from a larger scale that teacher evaluations are not meant as a tool to fire teachers.
In all actuality, it would take three consecutive years of an ineffective rating to be fired. An
outside voice would reaffirm the fact that all state teacher evaluations are moving towards the
same set of rigorous standards, which are centered on principals by Danielson and Marzano and
aimed to promote growth.
I would lobby for this external professional leaning experience to be coupled with a
discussion by our educational service provider. As the entity that manages human resources, it
would be beneficial for them to echo that teacher evaluations have changes so that we are in
compliance with state mandates. It would also be beneficial to hear from another level that
internally, evaluations are intended to assist teachers in morphing teaching practices to meet the
needs of new standards and assessments. Discussion with the state/local entity and with the

educational service providers are two learning opportunities that would assist in removing the
negative connotation attached to evaluations.
Awareness about the evaluation laws and our internal intentions should be coupled with
collaboration in the evaluation process. Sorenson (2011) states that one manner in which to
create a positive school environment is to collaborate with the curriculum team and other
members of the learning community (p.93). This can take a number of different forms. One
approach would be to enlist several teachers to review the evaluation tool itself. The evaluation
tool should be created with input from those who are being assessed. Instructional specialists
and teachers have a unique insight into areas, which are vital to instruction. They possess
valuable opinions on areas in which teachers will most likely struggle. Teachers would also be
able to shed light on whether the language in the tool is clear and if the scoring system is
perceived to be fair. This would allow administration to foresee potential confusion and
frustration, while demonstrating that this process was completed with valued input from teachers,
rather than unilaterally.
A team of well-respected teachers, administrators, and instructional specialists could also
be assembled to review the evaluation process at large. This would provide insight into
components that would foster teacher understanding and growth. The presence of informal
observation, peer-observations, and instructional rounds could all be debated with teachers.
Also, the link to professional development could be discussed. In order to be successful, an
organizations leaders need to understand themselves, their people, and the potential sources of
conflict (Heifetz, 2001, p.134). Collaborating with teachers in the evaluation process would
diffuse potential disagreements, demonstrate that they are valued, and provide a unique
perspective with their knowledge on specific content and instruction.

Symbolically, there must also be changes to ensure a less rocky adoption of the new
evaluation process. Great leaders always have the vision in mind and use every activity to
demonstrate the vision (Bolman, 2002). This must be accomplished by narrowing the focus from
quality instruction to a more succinct, memorable theme for the year. This would offer teachers
with a more manageable task to tackle and would also provide administrators with a more
focused area with which to observe. Heifetz (2001) states that leaders need to view patterns
from the balcony and address issues rather than sweep them under the rug (p.131). Therefore,
the themes for the year should be derived from teacher observations and proven areas for
improvement. If redesigning the theme I would focus all aspects of professional development on
student-centered learning and higher depth of knowledge. These foci are broad enough to dive
into for an entire year, yet also are obtainable.
Symbolically, narrowing the focus would be beneficial, yet the theme for the year must
be presented with rationale and must fit into the mission for the school. The school mission is
centered on academic excellence and preparing student for colleges and careers. It must be
overtly presented to staff that the changes in the evaluation process are occurring because of a
statewide effort to better prepare student for college. It should be conveyed to veteran teachers
that practices of the past were not futile, yet research has proven that student-centered learning
and moving away from lectures engage students. This engagement is needed as digital learners
are powering down in schools, and as they are faced with more performance tasks to compete
globally. Support should be provided, not only from Danielson, but also from a collection of
authors. It should be stressed that Marzano, Danielson, Gardner, and other researchers all
indicate that acting as the facilitator is most effective. This is why it is rated highly effective on
the evaluation tool.

New teachers to the field also need to be addressed. While there are a plethora of
web2.0 technologies and applets to connect to curriculum, they are far from the core of
curriculum. Studies indicate that an increase in technology can correlate to stagnant test scores if
the technology is not used to support sound instructional practices (Richtel, 2011). Technologies
that foster student-centered learning with immediate feedback are desirable and are a
characteristic of a highly effective teacher. On the other hand, lecturing from Prezis is a medium
change that is void of an instructional benefit.
Analyzing this problem of practice through political and symbolic lenses assisted in
gaining the perspective of the teachers and in considering positive changes. The teacher
evaluation process is largely affected by politics from the state of Michigan and from the uneven
power structure within our district. Symbolism within our school also played a large role in its
negative reception. When facing the teacher evaluation process in the future I would address the
politics of the evaluation head-on with presentations from the state of Michigan and our
management company. This would aim to put our teachers at ease in regards to job security. I
also would strive to foster teacher inclusion in creating the observation tool and in developing
the overall evaluation process. Symbolically, I would create a more concise theme for the year,
connect it to the vision, and provide rationale for the changes in the evaluation process.

Work Cited
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Leading with Soul and Spirit. School Administrator, 59(2),
21-26.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing Organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heifetz, R. & Laurie, D. (1997). The Works of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, Dec.
2001, 131 141.
Max, J. (2014). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Early Impacts of
Pay-For-Performance After one Year. National enter of Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Michigan Department of Education (2014). Educator evaluations and effectiveness in
Michigan. Retrieved November 2, 2014 from http://www.michigan.gov/
documents/mde/Educator_Evaluations_and_Effectiveness_Report_455793_7.pdf
Richtel, M. (2011). In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores. The New York Times.
Sorenson, R. D., Goldsmith, L.M., Mendez, Z.Y., & Maxwell, K.T. (2011). The Principals
Guide to Curriculum Leadership. Corwin Press.