Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Creators: McGuire, Keon
Description
The purpose of this study was to examine the lasting effects of repealed discriminatory laws on African Americans' college attendance rates and experiences. It examined the way that laws that targeted African Americans specifically created a lasting environment long after being declared unconstitutional. These persist to this day and affect their ability to attend higher education. To study the long reaching effects of these laws, I conducted semi-structured interviews with African-Americans, some of whom attended higher education, while others did not. Common important themes were identified through these interviews, including: Environmental and Institutional Factors, Support Systems, and Role Models, the dynamics of which showed lasting effects attributable to discriminatory laws.
ContributorsWest, Myles (Author) / Gaughan, Monica (Thesis director) / McGuire, Keon (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-12
Description
Over the past 20 years in the United States (U.S.), teachers have seen a marked
shift in how teacher evaluation policies govern the evaluation of their performance.
Spurred by federal mandates, teachers have been increasingly held accountable for their
students’ academic achievement, most notably through the use of value-added models
(VAMs)—a statistically complex tool that aims to isolate and then quantify the effect of
teachers on their students’ achievement. This increased focus on accountability ultimately
resulted in numerous lawsuits across the U.S. where teachers protested what they felt
were unfair evaluations informed by invalid, unreliable, and biased measures—most
notably VAMs.
While New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system was labeled as a “gold standard”
due to its purported ability to objectively and accurately differentiate between effective
and ineffective teachers, in 2015, teachers filed suit contesting the fairness and accuracy
of their evaluations. Amrein-Beardsley and Geiger’s (revise and resubmit) initial analyses
of the state’s teacher evaluation data revealed that the four individual measures
comprising teachers’ overall evaluation scores showed evidence of bias, and specifically,
teachers who taught in schools with different student body compositions (e.g., special
education students, poorer students, gifted students) had significantly different scores
than their peers. The purpose of this study was to expand upon these prior analyses by
investigating whether those conclusions still held true when controlling for a variety of
confounding factors at the school, class, and teacher levels, as such covariates were not
included in prior analyses.
Results from multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, overall, the
measures used to inform New Mexico teachers’ overall evaluation scores still showed
evidence of bias by school-level student demographic factors, with VAMs potentially
being the most susceptible and classroom observations being the least. This study is
especially unique given the juxtaposition of such a highly touted evaluation system also
being one where teachers contested its constitutionality. Study findings are important for
all education stakeholders to consider, especially as teacher evaluation systems and
related policies continue to be transformed.
shift in how teacher evaluation policies govern the evaluation of their performance.
Spurred by federal mandates, teachers have been increasingly held accountable for their
students’ academic achievement, most notably through the use of value-added models
(VAMs)—a statistically complex tool that aims to isolate and then quantify the effect of
teachers on their students’ achievement. This increased focus on accountability ultimately
resulted in numerous lawsuits across the U.S. where teachers protested what they felt
were unfair evaluations informed by invalid, unreliable, and biased measures—most
notably VAMs.
While New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system was labeled as a “gold standard”
due to its purported ability to objectively and accurately differentiate between effective
and ineffective teachers, in 2015, teachers filed suit contesting the fairness and accuracy
of their evaluations. Amrein-Beardsley and Geiger’s (revise and resubmit) initial analyses
of the state’s teacher evaluation data revealed that the four individual measures
comprising teachers’ overall evaluation scores showed evidence of bias, and specifically,
teachers who taught in schools with different student body compositions (e.g., special
education students, poorer students, gifted students) had significantly different scores
than their peers. The purpose of this study was to expand upon these prior analyses by
investigating whether those conclusions still held true when controlling for a variety of
confounding factors at the school, class, and teacher levels, as such covariates were not
included in prior analyses.
Results from multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, overall, the
measures used to inform New Mexico teachers’ overall evaluation scores still showed
evidence of bias by school-level student demographic factors, with VAMs potentially
being the most susceptible and classroom observations being the least. This study is
especially unique given the juxtaposition of such a highly touted evaluation system also
being one where teachers contested its constitutionality. Study findings are important for
all education stakeholders to consider, especially as teacher evaluation systems and
related policies continue to be transformed.
ContributorsGeiger, Tray (Author) / Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey (Thesis advisor) / Anderson, Kate (Committee member) / McGuire, Keon (Committee member) / Holloway, Jessica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020