AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BENNETT H. LITHERLAND ‘ 1968 ‘H .7“ "ID i *m I . - " L '-' L- . ‘ z' t ; y ’9 .- -A As - A t‘ ‘ " Mi”: ; i.\ \ .’ V A .v . -z‘ 11 J‘u'sc 'wxx {‘31:}, '5’?! man... ‘ Wfiqu'o" This is to certify-gut the? thesis entitled. " AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS presented by Bennett H. Litherland has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Educational ELIL— degree in_Adminis.trat ion é K. MV alor professor a Date October 11, 1968 0-169 ....._...._.... a—n - - -.——— _.____._ *_. _.._.______ .. “5—“- ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY Bennett H. Litherland The State of Michigan has mandatory tenure for teachers. School districts may or may not have formal programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. All teachers are evaluated before they are recommended for tenure status. Such evaluation is often based upon teacher con- formity to administrative routines and regulations and not upon effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in the actual act of teaching. In addition, evaluatiOn often ends with the recommendation for tenure instead of serv- ing to assist the teacher to improve his or her performance in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to survey and analyze selected programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the public school districts of Michigan to: (l) clarify the relationship between teacher evaluation and teacher tenure; and (2) to derive recommendations in the form of model programs, for developing and improving such evaluative programs so that they can serve not only as the basis for Bennett H. Litherland recommending teachers for tenure but, most importantly, help improve teacher performance. The basic information for this study was secured through three methods: (1) a review of the pertinent teacher evaluation and teacher tenure literature; (2) questionnaires mailed to the superintendent, one board of education member, and sample numbers of principals, pro- bationary teachers, and tenure teachers from each of six districts selected for intensive study from the fifty-nine Michigan public school districts which had teacher tenure before tenure became mandatory on March 12, 1964; and (3) interviews with the superintendent, the board member, a principal, and a probationary teacher from each of the six districts. study: The following conclusions were derived from this The idealistic program for evaluating teachers for tenure presented in the review of.the literature was not practiced in the six school districts studied intensively. The sole purpose of the programs studied was to gather evidence to use when the time came to decide whether or not to recommend a teacher for tenure status. The programs studied did nothing to improve actual teaching performance. The major emphasis in the programs studied was upon the teachers' ability to gain and main- tain control of students and the learning situation. The programs studied served to stifle teacher creativity and stressed conformity. Instruments were not wanted or needed in the programs studied. Bennett H. Litherland 7. The members of the boards of education of the districts whose programs were studied did not have sufficient knowledge of or sufficient interest in their districts' programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. 8. Programs for evaluating teachers for tenure were not considered a matter of priority in the school districts studied. 9. Teachers and administrators in the districts whose programs were studied did not have equal knowledge or equal understanding of the compo- nents and operations of these programs. 10. Communication between the teachers and evalua- tors during the evaluation process was almost non-existent. 11. The evaluators in the proqrams studied were not adequately prepared for this task. Two model programs for teacher evaluation were developed. Model Program A was based upon the data gathered through the procedures of the study. It reflected the fact that programs for evaluating teachers for tenure were ends in themselves and did not help improve teacher performance. Model Program A was oriented toward admin- istrator evaluation of teachers for tenure. Model Program B was develOped to function as one means of helping teachers to improve their teaching per- formance. It was based on a team approach to the evalua- tion of teachers. "Master teachers" would develop the teacher evaluation program. Evaluation Teams, composed of teachers, students, principals, and subject area super- visors would help teachers to improve their teaching performances through classroom observations, evaluation conferences, demonstration lessons, and in-service work- shOps. AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY ,...-I,6~’ Bennett HEPLitherland A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, Dr. James E. Green, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, and Dr. Paul A. Varg, the members of the candidate's doctoral committee, is gratefully acknowledged. A Special thanks is due to the candidate's wife Judy, son Ted, and daughter Kathy for their love and help throughout the doctoral program and, especially, the completion of the dissertation. Finally, my parents, Dr. and Mrs. H. Litherland of Wessington Springs, South Dakota, deserve the most thanks because they were the ones who gave me the will to begin and complete the doctoral program and all of the other challenges of life. ii LIST OF TABLES Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS I THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF THE LITEMTURE . C O O O C O O C O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . The Need for the Study . . . . . . . . Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . Procedures of the Study . . The DeveIOpment of the Inquiry to the School Districts Selected for Intensive Study . . . . . . The Public School Districts Selected for Intensive Study . . The Inquiries to the Selected School Districts . . . . . . . . The Sampling Procedures . . . . . The Interviews . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms Used . . . . . . . A Review of the Literature . . . . . . The Purposes of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . The DevelOpment of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . The Procedures in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . The Sources of Data for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . The Standards for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . Instruments in Programs for Evalu- ating Teachers for Tenure . . . Staff Personnel Records in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Stud . . . . iii Page , viii H \lmmNHH 10 11 l4 l4 17 19 21 22 25 27 28 Chapter II Page AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE OF THE SIX DISTRICTS O O O I O O O O O I O O 0 O O O 30 In1t1ation and DevelOpment of the Teacher Evaluation Program . . . . . 32 Familiarity of Teachers with The1r School Districts' Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . 34 When the School District's Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Had Been ExPlained to the Teachers . . . 35 Specific Preparation for the Evalua- t1on of Teachers Given or Required of the Evaluators . . . . O O I O O 37 Extent to Which Evaluators Had Pre- parat1on in the Application of Evaluation Techniques . . . . . . 38 Additional Types of Preparation Needed by the Evaluators . . . . . . 38 Extent to Which the Role of Proba- tionary Teachers Had Been Clearly Defined . . . . . . . . 39 Extent to Which "Good Teaching" Had Been Clearly Defined . . . . . . 39 The Effect of a Teacher's Knowledge of the Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure on His or Her Decision to Accept a Teaching Position . . . 39 The Effect of Knowledge of the School System's Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure on a Teacher 5 I Intent1on to Remain in the School system I O O O O O O O O . . . 40 Extent to Which Emphasis Should Be Placed upon the Use of Instruments 1n the Evaluation of Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . O I O O 4O Extent to Which ApprOpriate Steps Were Taken to Insure that all Evaluative Informat1on Concerning Teachers Remained Confidential 0 O O O O O O 40 K1nds of Information Which Were Recorded and/or Filed in the Personnel Records of Probationary Teachers 0 C 41 iv Chapter Extent to Which the System of Main- taining Personnel Records for Teacher Evaluation Purposes was Adequate . . Who Was Primarily Responsible for Reviewing the Accumulated Data Regarding Probationary Teachers . . How Often the Accumulated Data Regard- ing Probationary Teachers Was Reviewed . . . . . . . . Who Made the Final Decision Whether or Not a Teacher Would be Recommended for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . With Whome Should Rest the Final Responsibility for Deciding Whether or Not a Probationary Teacher Should Be Recommended for Tenure . . . . . Whether or Not a Statement of Reasons Accompanied a Recommendation to the Board of Education of Tenure or Dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . To What Extent Probationary Teachers Who Needed Help Received Adequate Assistance in Removing Deficiencies and the Kinds of Assistance Given . The Effect of the Program of Teacher Evaluation on the Morale of Proba- tionary Teachers . . . . . . . . . Whether or Not the Evaluation of Teachers Increased Teaching Effectiveness . . . . . . . The Extent to Which the Board of Education Was in Agreement with the Present Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . Major Problems or Obstacles Encountered in Carrying Out an Effective Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . Recommendations for Improvements in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whether or Not the Formal, Organized Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Should be Continued . . . . . III THE PURPOSES, STANDARDS, SOURCES OF DATA, AND PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE OF THE SIX DISTRICTS . . . . . Page 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 49 Chapter The Purposes of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . The Standards by Which the Work of Probationary Teachers Was Evaluated . The Sources of Data for Making Judg- ments About the Work of Probationary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practices and Procedures in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . Who Had Primary Responsibility for Evaluating the Work of Proba- tionary Teachers . . . . . . . . Who Assisted in Evaluating the Work of Probationary Teachers . How Many Times the Classroom Teaching of Probationary Teachers Had Been Observed by Their Principals . . . . . . . . Had the Evaluator Held a Confer- ence with the Teacher Following Each Observation . . . . . . . . How Many Conferences Had Been Held with Each Probationary Teacher Following Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . Number of Evaluations of Proba- tionary Teachers' Work in Which an Instrument Was Used . .<. . . How Probationary Teachers Were Informed of Their Evaluations . Were Probationary Teachers Asked to Sign the Evaluation Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . Extent to Which Probationary Teachers Were in Agreement with the Evaluations Made of Their Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provisions in the Program of Evaluation for Probationary Teachers to Offer Additional Information if Their Evalua- tions Had Been Undeservedly Low . . . . . . . Voluntary Submission of Additional Information by Probationary Teachers Which Would be Useful In the Evaluation of Their Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 50 51 53 55 55 56 56 57 58 58 58 59 60 61 61 Chapter IV SELECTED Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Ways in Which Probationary Teachers Evaluated, or Sought Assistance in Evaluating Their Own Work . . . . . . . . . . . . Ways in Which Probationary Teachers Had Been Encouraged by Others to Evaluate Their Own Work . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY, AND MODEL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . . . Model Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . Model Program A . . . . . . . . . Model Program B . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O U 0 m Table 1. l I O O O O O O C O O O I O O 0 Tables 2.1 Through 2.33 . . . . . . . . Tables 3.1 Through 3.15 . . . . . . . . The Letter and the Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents of the Fifty- Nine School Districts . . . . . . . . Letter and Post Card Sent to the Super- intendents of the Six Districts Selected for Intensive Study . . . . Cover Letters and Questionnaires Sent to the Personnel of the Six Districts Intensively Studied . . . . . . . . . vii Page 61 62 63 63 64 64 65 67 75 77 79 121 142 147 150 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 LIST OF TABLES The Fifty-Nine Public School Districts Which Were Sent Questionnaires . . . . . . ReSponses by Superintendents Regarding Who Was (Were) Primarily Responsible for Initiating Ehe DeveIOpment of a Program of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Principals Regarding Who Was (Were) Primarily Responsible for Initiat- ing the Development of a PrOgram of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents Regarding Who Had a Part in the Study and Development of the Program for Evaluating Teachers . . Responses by Principals Regarding Who Had a Part in the Study and Deve10pment of the Program for Evaluating Teachers . . . . . Responses by Probationary and Tenure Teachers Indicating Their Familiarity with Their School District's Formal, Organized Pro- grams for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . ReSponses by Probationary and Tenure Teachers Indicating When Their School System's‘ Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Were ExPlained to Them . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents and Principals Regarding What Specific Preparation for the Evaluation of Teachers Their School Systems Gave or Required of the Persons Assigned Primary Responsibility for This Task . . . Responses by Probationary and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Specific Preparation for the Evaluation of Teachers Their School Systems Gave or Required of the Persons Assigned Primary Responsibility for This Task . . . Responses of Probationary and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Extent to Which Persons Assigned the Primar Responsibility for Evaluating TeacHers for Tenure had Adequate Preparation in Applying Evaluation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 77 81 81 82 82 83 83 84 85 86 Table 2.10 2.11 2.14 Responses of Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning What Additional Types of Preparation the Evaluators Should Receive in Applying Evaluation Techniques . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning to What Extent the Role (Duties, Responsibilities) of Probationary Teachers in Their School Systems Had Been Clearly Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning to What Extent "Good Teaching" Had Been Clearly Defined in Their School Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Probationary and Tenure Teachers Concerning How the Knowledge of Their School Systems' Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Affected Their Deci- sion to Accept a Position in the School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Probationary Teachers Concerning the Effect of Their KnowIedge of the School Systems' Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure on Their Intentions of Remaining in the School System . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Tenure Teachers Concerning the Effect of Their Knowledge of the School Systems' Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure on Their Intentions of Remain- ing in the School System . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Extent to Which the Instru- ment (Check List, Rating Scale, Test, Etc.) Used in Their School Systems Was an Effect- ive Device for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Extent to Which Emphasis Should be Placed Upon the Use of Instru- ments in the Evaluation of Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning the Extent to Which ApprOpriate Steps are Taken in Their School Systems to Insure That All Evaluative Information Con- cerning Teachers Remains Confidential . . ix Page 87 88 90 92 93 94 95 97 Table 2.19 Page Responses by Superintendents and Principals Regarding the Various Kinds of Information Which Were Recorded and/or Filed in the Personnel Records of Probationary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . 101 Responses by Superintendents and Principal Concerning the Extent to Which the System of Maintaining Personnel Records for Teacher Evaluation Purposes Was Adequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Responses by Superintendents and Principals Concerning Who Was Primarily Responsible for Reviewing the Accumulated Data Regarding Probationary Teachers . . . . . 103 Responses by Superintendents and Principals Concerning How Often the Accumulated Data Regarding Probationary Teachers was Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding, When a Teacher Became Eligible for Tenure, Who Made the Final Decision Whether or Not That Teacher Was Recommended to the Board of Education for Tenure . . . 105 Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning With Vfluxn Should Rest the - Final Responsibility for Deciding Whether or Not a Probationary Teacher Should Be Recommended for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . 107 Re5ponses by Superintendents and Principals Concerning Whether or Not a Statement of Reasons Accompanied a Recommendation to the Board of Education for Tenure or Dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning to What Extent Probationary Teachers in Their School Systems Who Needed Help Received Adequate Assistance in Removing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Describing the Kinds of Assistance Given Probationary Teachers to Remove Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . 111 Table 2.28 2.32 Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Effect of the Program of Teacher Evaluation on the Morale of Probationary Teachers . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning Whether or Not the Evaluation of Teachers Increased Teach- ing Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding the Extent to Which the Board of Education Was in Agreement With the Present Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding What Major Problems or Obstacles Their School Systems Had Encountered in Carrying Out an Effective Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Regarding Their Recommendations for Improvements in Their School Systems' Programs for Evaluating Teachers for‘ Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses by Superintendents, Principals, Probationary Teachers, and Tenure Teachers Concerning Whether or Not Their School Systems' Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Should Be Continued Purposes of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure . . . . . . . . . . Standards by Which the Work of Probationary Teachers Is Evaluated . . . . . . . . . Sources of Data for Making Judgments About the Work of Probationary Teachers . . . ReSponses by Principals Regarding Approxi- mately How Many Times They Had Observed in Each Probationary Teacher's Classroom So Far This School Year . . . . . . . . Responses by Probationary Teachers Regard- ing Approximately How Many Times Their Classroom Teaching Had Been Observed by the Principal of Their School So Far This School Year . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 112 114 116 118 118 119 124 126 129 130 131 Table 3.7 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 Page Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning Whether or Not a Conference Was Held With the Teacher by the Evaluator Following Each Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning Approximately How Many Conferences Had Been Held With Each Probationary Teacher Following Classroom Observations if a Conference Had Not Been Held Following Each Observation . . 133 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning the Number of Evalua- tions of Probationary Teachers' Work in Which an Instrument Was Used . . . . . . 134 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning How Their School Systems Informed Probationary Teachers of Their Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . 135 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning Whether Probationary Teachers Were Asked to Sign the Evalua- tion Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning the Extent to Which Probationary Teachers Were in Agreement With the Evaluations Which Were Made of Their Work . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . 137 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning Whether There Were Provisions in the Program of Evaluation for Probationary Teachers to Submit Additional Information if They Believed That the Evaluation Had Been Undeservedly Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning the Extent to Which Probationary Teachers Voluntarily Sub- mitted Information Which Was Useful in the Evaluation of Their Work . . . . . . 139 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning the Ways, if Any, in Which Probationary Teachers Evaluated, or Sought Assistance in Evaluating Their Own Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Responses by Principals and Probationary Teachers Concerning the Ways, if Any, in Which Probationary Teachers Have Been Encouraged by Others to Evaluate Their Own Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Statement of the Problem The State of Michigan has mandatory tenure for teachers. However, school districts may or may not have formal programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. All teachers are evaluated before they are recommended for tenure status. Such evaluation is often based upon teacher conformity to administrative routines and regulations and not upon effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in the actual act of teaching. In addition, evaluation often ends with the recommendation for tenure instead of serving to assist the teacher to improve his or her performance in the classroom. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to survey and analyze selected programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the public school districts of Michigan to: (l) clarify the relationship between teacher evaluation and teacher tenure; and (2) to derive recommendations in the form of model programs, for developing and improving such evaluative programs so that they can serve not only as the basis for recommending teachers for tenure but, most importantly, help improve teacher performance. The Need for the Study The 1964 amendment to the Michigan Teachers' Tenure Act had great impact on the majority of the public school districts in the state. By September, 1963, only fifty-nine of the districts had adOpted the permissive Teachers' Tenure Act. The amendment thrust teacher tenure on the rest of the public school districts in the state for the first time by creating an immediate need for the establishment of procedures for evaluating teachers for tenure. Some districts created formal procedures; others relied on informal procedures. However, a need was created to survey and analyze both the formal procedures and in- formal procedures to derive ways of develOping and improving such programs. The number of public school districts in Michigan is reduced each year by re-organization and consolidation. The creation of a new school district can result in the placing of all teachers from the former districts on probationary status. A study of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure may provide recommendations to these districts for correlating teacher evaluation programs and teacher tenure within implementation of the Teachers' Tenure Act. In the 1965 session of the Michigan Legislature, the Hutchinson Act and the Labor Mediation Act were amended by HB-2953 and HB-2954. The former bill added to the Hutchinson Act the legal authority for public employees (teachers) to negotiate with employers (boards of education) through representatives of their own free choice. In addition, it provided for recognition of a sole bargaining representative and for an election to determine that representative if representation were con- tested by two or more organizations. The bill further stipulated that the election was valid for twelve months, or for three years if both employees and employer entered into a negotiations agreement which included a master contract. The Hutchinson Act required bargaining in good faith. Refusal by an employer to negotiate or attempts to influence or interfere with the organizing of employees were deemed unfair labor practices, which could be taken to the Labor Mediation Board. Provisions for court appeal were also included. HB-2954 provided for mediation and fact-finding by the Labor Mediation Board in impasse situations. Such mediation was advisory only. It was not binding on either party. The advent of professional negotiations between teachers and boards of education in Michigan has created another need for this study.‘ Professional negotiations mean much more teacher involvement in the establishment and improvement of working conditions in each school district. Professional negotiations also mean that each teacher has an organization which represents him in all dealings with the board of education and the administra- tive staff. A natural outgrowth of negotiations and organiza- tional representation is a willingness on the part of the organization to defend and prosecute teacher grievances. Grievance procedures are established as part of negotiat- ing master contracts, and the bargaining organization selects a grievance committee to initiate such procedures. The bargaining organization logically is interested in having its grievance committee handle the case of a teacher who has been rightly or wrongly denied tenure status. The bargaining organization will also question a case in which an ineffective teacher has been placed on tenure status, or at least rehired for another year. Therefore, it is more important than ever for a school district to develop or improve a formal, organized program for evaluating teachers for tenure. Then, the administrative staff of the district has written evidence of the teaching performance of probationary teachers and the attempts which have been made to strengthen that per- formance where necessary. Administrators can use this written evidence when they act to recommend or deny tenure status. Such evidence also shows the bargaining organization that administrators attempt to improve class- room instruction by working to strengthen weak teaching performance. A review of the literature reveals that one piece of research which examines programs for evaluating teachers for tenure has been completed. It is a doctoral disserta- tion by Max Wellington Evans, titled: An Analysis of Programs for Evaluating Probationary Teachers for Tenure in Selected Ohio School Districts. Since Evans' study is limited to Ohio, it should be recognized that each state and each local school system have unique problems and concerns in the area of programs for evaluating teachers. Therefore, a great deal of research still needs to be done to evolve a clearer picture of the relationship between teacher evaluation and teacher tenure. Assumptions of the Study The need for this study is based on these assump- tions: 1. That all teachers before achieving tenure status are evaluated through either formal or informal means. 2. That a formal, organized program for evaluat- ing teachers presents the most reliable approach to the selection of teachers for tenure. 3- That the practices and procedures included in programs for evaluating teachers for tenure can be secured through the research procedures to be employed in this study. 4. That the specific practices which can be identified contribute to an effective program for evaluating teachers for tenure. 5. That present Michigan Law concerning mandatory statewide tenure for teachers will remain in effect. 6. That the fifty-nine Michigan public school districts which had teacher tenure before March 12, 1964, will serve as the best focus for this study, because in each district teacher tenure was adOpted voluntarily and the personnel and boards of education of the districts have had time to revise and improve their programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. 7. That the study of these school districts' programs for evaluating teachers for tenure will have implications for similar programs in other public school districts. 8. That programs for evaluating teachers for tenure can also help improve teacher perform— ance. Based on these assumptions specific limitations have been placed on this study. Limitations of the Study This study is concerned entirely with programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. There is no attempt to include evaluation of teachers for salary advancement, for promotion, for purposes of record, or for traditional maintenance of personnel records. Geographically, the study is confined to public school districts in Michigan. Within the state the study is limited to the fifty-nine public school districts which had teacher tenure prior to March 12, 1964. To fulfill the purposes of this study, specific procedures are created to gather the necessary data. Procedures of the Study The basic information for this study was secured through three methods: (1) a review of the literature; (2) the mailed questionnaire; and (3) the interview. The Development of the Inquiry to the School Districts Selected for Intensive Study The pertinent teacher evaluation and teacher tenure literature was reviewed to find specific principles, procedures, standards, factors, and criteria for effective teacher evaluation programs. These data were then class- ified into a set of criteria which could be used to make judgments and recommendations concerning the develOpment and Operation of formal, organized teacher evaluation programs with the evaluation of teachers for tenure as one of their objectives. The criteria were used to construct a four-page questionnaire which was sent to the superin- tendents of the fifty-nine school districts. The names of these school districts, their location, and the class of school district were placed in Table 1.1 in Appendix A on pages seventy-seven and seventy eight. The names of the superintendents and addresses of the school districts were obtained from the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1965-66. The purposes of the questionnaire to the superin- tendents were: To gather data concerning the status of the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the fifty-nine public school districts. To provide the data needed for locating those public school districts in which formal,; organized programs for evaluating teachers for tenure were in Operation. Such districts would be subject to more intensive study. The Public School Districts Selected for Intensive Study Six of the fifty-nine public school districts were selected for intensive study of their programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. This number of school districts was selected because it represented a manage- able number for the acquisition of data, and yet it was large enough to represent all of the kinds of school districts sent the initial questionnaire. The criteria for selecting these six school districts were that they: Represented as many geographical areas of Michigan as possible. Represented a range in pupil enrollment from approximately 2,400 to 45,000. Were representative of both rural and urban communities. Had board of education policies regarding teacher evaluation and teacher tenure. Had formal, organized programs for evaluating teachers for tenure which had been in effect long enough for some teachers to have under- gone an actual and official two-year proba- tionary period and to have been granted tenure on the basis of these formal evaluation procedures. The Inquiries to the Selected School Districts To secure detailed information from the school districts selected for intensive study, questionnaires were sent to a sample of probationary teachers in their second or third year of probationary status in the school district, a sample of teachers who had acquired tenure within the previous four-year period, a sample of elemen-, tary principals, all secondary (junior and senior high) school principals, all superintendents, and one member of each board of education. The names and addresses of the teachers and board of education members were supplied by the superintendents. The source for the names of the principals was the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1965-66. The Sampling Procedure A total of 192 teachers, ninety-six probationary teachers and ninety-six tenure teachers, were chosen arbitrarily. Each of the six school districts was represented by sixteen probationary and sixteen tenure teachers. If the total number of probationary and tenure teachers eligible for selection in any school district was thirty-two or fewer, all teachers were included in the sample. When the numbers of teachers were more than adequate for sampling, the teachers' names were divided ' 10 according to their status, probationary or tenure. They were divided again according to teaching level, elementary or secondary. The names were then alphabetized and numbered. A table of random numbers was used to select equal numbers of elementary and secondary probationary and tenure teachers in each district. Elementary principals equal to the number of secondary principals in each school district were selected in a similar manner. To secure the name of a board of education member from each school district, the names, as listed in the information provided by the superintendent, were numbered. A table of random numbers was used to choose the specific name . The Interviews Structured interviews were conducted with specific persons in each school district. The purposes of these interviews included the verification and clarification of information received from the returned questionnaires and a more intensive study of the actual programs for evaluat- ing teachers for tenure. Those interviewed were the superintendent, the board of education member who received a questionnaire, a principal, and a probationary teacher. The criteria for the selection of the principal and teacher to be interviewed in each school district were: 11 1. An equal distribution of interviews among elementary and secondary teachers. 2. Selection from different organizational levels and different school buildings. 3. Random selection from those returning completed inquiries. All communication with potential respondents was based on a common understanding of the definitions of terms used regarding programs for evaluating teachers for tenure . Definitions of Terms Used A formal, organized program for the evaluation of teachers had these characteristics: 1. Written and ad0pted board of education policies pertaining to the evaluation of teachers 2. A clear delineation of reSponsibility for carrying out the evaluation process 3. A systematized means for collecting, record- ing, and reviewing the evidence regarding the work of teachers ‘ 4. Provisions for self-evaluation by teachers 5. Clearly defined criteria, standards, or factors upon which teachers are evaluated. A board of education poligy designated any policy which had been written and formally adoPted by a board of education. Evaluation of teachers for tenure was the proce- dure in which a judgment, based upon a formal, organized evaluation program, was made whether or not to grant a probationary teacher tenure status. A probationary teacher was one who had not achieved tenure status. In Michigan, all teachers during 12 the first two years of employment were on a probationary status.1 However, no teacher could be required to serve more than one probationary period in any one school district; provided that a third year of probation might be granted by the board of education upon notice to the State Tenure Commission.2 Tenure was a system of school employment in which the teacher, having served a probationary period, retained his position indefinitely either by statute or by rule of the school board. Dismissal of employees having such protection had to follow certain specified procedures.3 Continuing tenure was synonymous with "tenure." This term was used in the General School Laws of Michigan to refer to tenure status. The two terms were used inter- changeably in this study. Eligibility for continuing tenure in MiChigan was available to a teacher after the satisfactory completion of a probationary period. The teacher had to be continu- ously employed by the board of education under which the lMichigan, General School Laws (Lansing: Speaker Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1959), sec. 717. 2Ibid., sec. 718. 3Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 256. 13 probationary period was completed, and he could not be dismissed or demoted except as specified in the Teachers' Tenure Act.4 When a teacher on continuing tenure was employed by another board of education, he could not be subject to a probationary period of more than one year. At the option of the board of education, the teacher might be immediately placed on continuing tenure.5 Public school districts of the State of Michigan were of three types: 1. School districts of the fourth class: school census of more than seventy-five and less than 2,400 children between the ages of five and twenty.6 2. School districts of the third class: school census of more than 2,400 and Iess than 30,000 children between the ages of five and twenty.7 3. School districts of the second class: school census of more than 30,000 and less than 120,000 children between the ages of five and twenty.8 . Criteria were standards, norms, or judgments selected as a basis for quantitative and qualitative I 9 compar1sons. 4Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Michigan, Supplement to The 1959 Revision of the General School Laws of Michigan, A Report Prepared by the Legisla- tive Service Bureau (Lansing: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1964), sec. 720. 5 Michigan, Op. cit., sec. 721. 6Ibid., sec. 49. 7Ibid., sec. 76. 8Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Michigan, Op. cit., sec. 123. 9Good, Op. cit., p. 110. 14 The questionnaires sent to the potential respondents in the six districts selected for intensive study were developed from a review of the literature. A Review Of the Literature This review is presented in seven sections: (1) the purposes of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure; (2) the development of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure; (3) the procedures in programs for evaluating teachers for tenure; (4) the sources of data for evaluating teachers for tenure; (5) the standards for evaluating teachers for tenure; (6) instruments in pro- grams for evaluating teachers for tenure; and (7) staff personnel records in programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. The Purposes of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Redfern suggested the following purposes for evaluating teachers for tenure: l. The assessment Of the status and quality of teach- ing performance 2. Identification of those aspects of performance which are below standard and need improvement 3. Stimulation of the growth and develOpment of the individual.10 10George B. Redfern, How to Appraise Teaching Performance (Columbus, Ohio: School Management Institute, Inc., 1963), p. 25. 15 Major emphasis was given by Redfern to evaluating what was taught in the classroom and how well it was taught. He gave secondary emphasis to improvement of the individual teacher. Another writer, Howsam, presented these purposes for evaluating teachers for tenure: to determine the effectiveness of the instructional program, to provide the basis for supervisory and in- service develOpment programs and activities, to provide the basis for administrative decisions, to motivate teachers to strive for a high level of performance, and to assist the teacher in achieving success. Howsam agreed with Redfern in two instances. He stressed motivating teachers to strive for a high level of perform- ance and assisting teachers tO achieve success. Castetter's views were similar to those of Howsam. In a discussion concerning the evaluation of the indivi- dual performances Of the personnel of a school system, including teachers, Castetter suggested the following purposes for evaluation: to determine whether the individual should be retained in the organization on a permanent basis, to ascertain the potential Of the individual to perform various kinds Of tasks, to place the individual in the organ- ization where he can render maximum service in the school system, to improve performance, to uncover abilities, and to point up in-service education needs.12 11Robert B. Howsam, "Facts and Folklore," The National Elementary Principal, XLIII (November, 1963), pp. 13-140 12William B. Castetter, Administering the School Personnel Program (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), pp. 284-285. 16 In every instance Castetter was central Office or total school system oriented. However, he was the first writer to emphasize that a purpose of evaluation was to determine whether or not the individual teacher should be placed on tenure. Evans specifically cited these purposes for evaluating probationary teachers for tenure: 1. . . .choosing worthy teachers for long-term appointments. 2. . . .enable every assistance possible to be given to the probationary teacher who needs help in re- moving his deficiencies. 3. . . .recognize excellence in teaching. 4. . . .provide motivation for participation in pro- fessional growth activities. 3 Like Castetter, Evans first purpose for evaluation was to determine whether or not the individual teacher was to be placed on tenure. In his other three purposes for evaluation, his views were similar to those of Redfern. Emphasis was placed on individual growth and improvement. Evans' fourth purpose was unique. No other writer had mentioned participation in professional growth activities. These purposes could serve as the basis for the develOpment of evaluation programs. l3Max Wellington Evans, "An Analysis of Programs for Evaluating Probationary Teachers for Tenure in Selected Ohio School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, College Of Education, The Ohio State University, 1961), pp. 46-47. 17 The Development of Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure In the publication, Better Than Rating, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Deve10pment of the National Education Association included the following organizational resolution: .appraisal programs should be COOperatively and locally evolved, and used democratically. . . .appraisal programs be initiated by school people together with representative lay citizens within the framework of some type of community council. . . . Later in the same report, these statements were listed as factors which should be kept in mind in a school community council develOping a program Of educational evaluation: 1. The process is a COOperative enterprise involving pupils, school peOple, and lay citizens. . . . The program of appraisal starts where teachers are and goes from there. ' Evaluation must be an integral part of the school community's program for improving the educational process, never an end-product nor imposed by administrative order. The program of appraisal is continuous and compre- hensive. Methods and procedures for evaluating teaching services must be COOperatively and locally evolved, since Objectives set by one group will not be exalted similar to those set by any other group. Techniques must be developed for gathering evidence of individual growth and develOpment. 14 . . . . . Assoc1ation for Superv1s1on and Curr1culum Deve10pment, Better Than Rating, A Report Prepared by the Commission on Teacher Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1950), p. 6. 18 7. An evaluative process makes intelligent use of objective testing instruments which are available or can be constructed.15 The ASCD placed major emphasis upon COOperative and local evolvement of evaluation programs. The programs would be develOped by pupils, school personnel, and representative lay citizens working together. Evans had similar views. He recommended: 1. The plan for evaluation of probationary teachers should be COOperatively develOped by teachers, administrators, and board members, and should be subject to revision, as experience dictates such a need. 2. Deve10pment should include a systematic plan of evaluation of the evaluation program and periodic revision.16 Evans, like the ASCD emphasized COOperative develOpment Of the program. However, he limited the types Of persons involved to teachers, administrators, and board of education members. Not only was COOperation among many groups necessary for the develOpment Of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure, but it was also necessary in their Operation. 151bid., pp. 67-70. 16Evans, Op. cit., pp. 47, 54, and 64. 19 The Procedures in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure In the Cincinnati, Ohio Public Schools, evaluation procedures consisted of self-appraisal, evaluation by the principal and supervisor, an appraisal conference, and apprOpriate follow-up action planned to emphasize the teacher's strong points or correct his deficiencies.l7 Two unique features of this process were the inclusion of teacher self-appraisal and follow-up action by the evaluator. Evans compiled the most comprehensive listing Of procedures for evaluating probationary teachers for tenure 2 1. The teacher should be informed upon beginning service in the school systen as to what require- ments will enter into the evaluation of his work and how the evaluation of his work will be re- corded. ' 2. The work Of each probationary teacher should be appraised by more than one evaluator. 3. The principal should have the major responsibility in evaluating the effectiveness of probationary teachers. 4. Supervisors should assist in evaluating proba— tionary teachers for tenure. 5. The person charged with the major responsibility for evaluating probationary teachers should hold a specified number of regularly scheduled con- ferences with all probationary teachers, and additional conferences should be held upon the request of either party. 17George B. Redfern, "Teacher Evaluation: Reports of Practice," The National Elementary School Principal, XLIII (November, 1963), p. 57. 20 6. A conference should be held with the teacher following each Observation. 7. Appraisal conferences with probationary teachers should be of both the individual and the group variety. 8. Information on an appraisal form should provide the basis for the appraisal conferences between the probationary teacher and the evaluator. 9. A summary of each appraisal conference should be prepared and entered into the teacher's personnel folder. 10. The Teacher should receive a copy Of any evalua- tion summary which is prepared. 11. Evaluation summaries which are placed in the teacher's personnel folder should be signed by both parties. 12. The accumulated evidence regarding each teacher should be reviewed at the end of each year of probation in order to formulate a recommendation to the board of education as to the re-employment or release of the teacher. 13. The final decision as to whether to grant tenure should be a joint decision of several peOple who are acquainted with the work of the teacher. 14. A letter should be sent by the superintendent to the probationary teacher prior to board action, informing the teacher of the recommendation to be made to the board and the reason for the recommend- ation. 15. The report to the board of education recommending tenure or dismissal should include a statement of reasons for the recommendation. 16. The procedures of appraisal should ensure that all evaluative data will be kept confidential.18 Evans agreed with Redfern that the probationary teacher should be evaluated by more than one person, and the evaluators should be the principal and the supervisor. Several procedures recommended by Evans were original. These were Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the preceeding list. 18Evans, Op. cit., pp. 47-49. 21 The final procedure in any program is the recommendation for tenure status or dismissal for a particular teacher to the board of education. This final decision should be based upon evidence obtained from many different sources. The Sources of Data for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Castetter referred to the sources Of data in the term "personnel appraisal techniques." These techniques included: Teacher self-evaluation; evaluation by pupils, school administrators, supervisors, colleagues, special committees, outside professional experts, and lay citizens; evaluation of teachers on the basis of con- crete evidence of the character of instruction, cumulative personnel record information, pupil changes, and nonstructured written responses; and evaluation of teachers by means of questionnaires and examinations. Castetter's list of techniques would give the administrator who had to make the final tenure or dis- missal recommendation comprehensive data upon which to base his decision. Castetter attempted to differentiate between subjective and objective evaluation. Teacher self-evaluation and evaluation of the teacher by the many individuals and groups listed were subjective sources of data. The character of instruction, cumulative personnel 19Castetter, Op. cit., pp. 286-287. 22 record information, pupil changes, nonstructured written responses, and questionnaires and examinations were means of Obtaining objective data. In the Evans study of programs-for evaluating probationary teachers for tenure, these sources of data were listed: 1. Classroom observations should be the major source Of data. I O I 2. Pupil tests. . . . 3. The Opinions of pupils whom the teacher has taught. . . . 4. The probationary teacher's participation in community activities. . . 0 Evans was unique in mentioning classroom Observa- tions and pupil tests as sources of data for evaluating teachers. He agreed with Castetter that evaluation of teachers by pupils should be a source of data. To summarize, the evaluation of teachers by others, particularly school administrators, was the major source Of data mentioned by the writers. Proper use of this source and others was dependent upon the creation and use Of concise standards for evaluation teachers for tenure. The Standards for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure According to Knezevich, the ultimate criterion of the effectiveness of teaching performance was the 20Evans, Op. cit., pp. 49 and 54. 23 changes which took place in pupil behavior.21 Dugan suggested an important standard unique to the teacher evaluation literature: . . .One trait is repeatedly mentioned throughout the literature for success in teaching: understanding. The teacher should be a sensitive person who recog- nizes and understands the needs of the child, the adult, and the community. . Smith, Krouse, and Atkinson presented a long list of standards in a discussion of merit rating. They placed most emphasis upon the knowledge and skills needed by teachers to work with others.23 In contrast, Knezevich emphasized the effectiveness of the teachers in bringing about changes in pupil behavior. Kingston and Gentry discussed standards for evaluating teachers for tenure in a study which dealt with merit rating. These writers listed the following standards: . Achievement Of pupils . Instructional methods . Student discipline (including care of equipment and materials) 1 2 3 21Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1962I, pp. 383-384. 22Ruth R. Dugan, "Personality and the Effective Teacher," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (September, 1961), P. 335. 23Edward W. Smith, Stanley W. Krouse, Jr., and Mark M. Atkinson, "Merit Increment," The Educator's Encyclopedia (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 87-88. 24 . Teacher personality and character . Relationship with parents . Relationship with community . Willingness to assume extra duties . Cooperation . Relationship with principal 10. Relationship with other teachers 11. Knowledge of subject 12. Professional activities (participation in pro- fessional organizations, etc.) 13. Caliber of daily preparation 14. Reaction of pupils 15. Type of subject taught 16. Extra time spent daily or weekly l7. Pupil-teacher ratio.2 Like Smith, Krouse, and Atkinson, the latter writers placed most emphasis upon the teacher's ability to work with others. However, achievement of pupils, instructional methods, knowledge of subject, and caliber of daily preparation were items from Kingston and Gentry's list of standards that related specifically to the actual teaching role of the teacher. The study by Evans pointed out: 1. . . .standards . . . should be stated in terms of observable characteristics of behavior. 2. Desirable pupil growth or change should be a criterion. . . . 3. The personal characteristics of the probationary teacher, such as voice, tact, health, appearance, and enthusiasm, should be criteria. . . . 4. The demonstrated professional attitudes of pro- bationary teachers, such as being ethical and loyal, having positive attitudes toward criticism, and accepting group decisions, should be criteria. . . . 24Albert J. Kingston and Harold W. Gentry, "Criteria Which Teachers Believe Should Be Evaluated in Merit Rating," Peabody Journal of Education, XLI (May, 1964), p. 339. lo. 11. 25 The teaching skills of the probationary teacher, such as using many materials to enrich the learn- ing process, preparing lessons well, providing for individual differences, and giving assign- ments skillfully, should be criteria. . . . Classroom management characteristics, such as attending to the physical conditions of the room, maintaining discipline and being prompt and accurate with records and reports, should be criteria. . . . Extra-class participations, such as assuming responsibility outside the classroom, particularly in community life, and COOperating in extra-class activities during non-teaching time, should be criteria. . . . Interpersonnel relationships, such as maintaining pleasant and COOperative relationships with other staff members, cooperating with the administra- tion, maintaining good pupil-teacher relation- ships, and working well with and gaining the respect of parents, should be criteria. . . . Demonstrated knowledge of subject matter taught should be a criterion. . . . Demonstrated knowledge of child growth and develop- ment should be a criterion. . . . Professional growth, as indicated by travelling, taking advanced studies, belonging to professional organizations, and participating in the in-service program should be a criterion. . . .25 The views Of Evans were quite similar to the views of other writers. One major exception was the requirement that the teacher demonstrate knowledge of child growth and develOpment. Instruments in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Linder and Gunn recommended that the evaluating instruments should be of two types: those which are 25Evans, Op. cit., pp. 49-50. 26 standardized, printed and modern in approach; and those which are develOped by the staff.2‘6 Evans presented the following items as criteria governing what instruments should be used in programs for evaluating probationary teachers for tenure: 1. Instruments, such as rating scales, check lists, or forced-choice performance rating devices, should be used. . . . 2. The data as revealed by the use of instruments should be supplemented by evidence from other sources. 3. . . . instruments should provide for a separate appraisal of the component parts of the teaching process. 4. . . . instruments should make provision for an over-all appraisal of the total effectiveness of the probationary teacher. 5. School systems should develOp their own instru- ments of appraisal. . . . 6. The appraisal instruments should also be usable as a self-evaluation device. 7. Appraisal instruments should provide for a weigh- ing of the various items. Evans listed several unique criteria., First, the data produced by the instruments should be supplemented by evidence from other sources. Second, school systems should develOp their own instruments. Linder and Gunn recommended the use of both locally develOped and standard- ized instruments. Third, the instruments should also be usable as a self-evaluation device. Fourth, an analysis 26Ivan H. Linder and Henry M. Gunn, Secondary School Administration: Problems and Practices (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963), p. 124. 27Evans, Op. cit., pp. 51-52. 27 should be made of the reliability and validity of the instruments before they are used. Fifth, the various items should be weighed. The instruments discussed by these writers could be placed in a teacher's personnel record file as evidence to be used in the evaluation of that teacher for tenure. Staff Personnel Records in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Evidence accumulated by evaluators could be re- corded in a cumulative record system which would provide the basis for judgments of personnel performance. The cumulative record should include apprOpriate anecdotal data, records of the results of evaluation, and any other type of data which could be useful to the administration in its efforts to improve the service rendered by school personnel.28 Evans' findings provided the most concise criteria for the inclusion of staff personnel records: 1. Cumulative record folders should be systematically maintained for all probationary teachers. 2. Staff personnel records should be maintained in strict confidence. 3. The data contained in the records should be factual rather than hearsay. 4. All significant observations should be recorded and placed in the personnel folder. 5. The teacher should be permitted to place materials in the personnel folder at any time. 28Castetter, Op. cit., p. 287. 28 6. Teachers should be encouraged to submit reports of accomplishments for insertion into their personnel folders. 7. The teacher should be permitted to see the staff personnel records on request. 8. Materials in the personnel records should not be withdrawn or altered except by mutual consent Of the teacher and the administrator in charge. The criteria for staff personnel records recommended by Evans emphasized the importance of keeping such records completely confidential between the teacher and the evaluator. Organization of the Study In Chapter II, the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the six selected districts are analyzed. In Chapter III, the purposes, standards, sources of data, and practices and procedures included in the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the six districts are presented. In addition, the respondents' Opinions con- cerning the actual or potential value of such components to a program for evaluating teachers for tenure are described. In Chapter IV, conclusions from the study, recommendations for further study, and model programs for improving teacher performance are presented. 29Evans, Op. cit., pp. 51 and 55. 29 In Appendices A through F are placed the tables containing the complete data upon which Chapters II and III are based, and the letters and questionnaires sent to the respondents. In the Selected Bibliography are listed the articles and periodicals, books, reports, and unpublished materials used in the study. CHAPTER II AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE OF THE SIX DISTRICTS The teacher evaluation programs in the six Michigan public school districts selected for intensive study are analyzed in this chapter. The complete data upon which this chapter is based were placed in Tables 2.1 through 2.33 in Appendix B on pages seventy-nine through 120. Items to be described and discussed include: 1. Initiation and develOpment of the teacher evaluation programs 2. Familiarity of the teachers with the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure 3. When the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure had been eXplained to teachers 4. Specific preparation for the evaluation Of teachers given or required of the evaluators 5. Extent to which evaluators had preparation in the application of evaluation techniques 6. Additional types of preparation needed by the evaluators 7. Extent to which the role of probationary teachers has been defined 8. Extent to which good teaching had been clearly defined 9. The effect of a teacher's knowledge of the program for evaluating teachers for tenure on his or her decision to accept a teaching posi- tion 10. The effect of a teacher's knowledge of the school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure on his or her intention to remain in the school system 30 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 31 The effectiveness of an instrument in a program for evaluating teachers for tenure Extent to which emphasis should be placed upon the use of instruments in the evaluation of teachers for tenure Extent to which apprOpriate steps are taken to insure that all evaluative information con- cerning teachers remains confidential Kinds of information which are recorded and/or filed in the personnel records of probationary teachers Extent to which the system of maintaining personnel records for teacher evaluation pur- poses is adequate Who is primarily responsible for reviewing the accumulated data regarding probationary teachers How Often the accumulated data regarding pro- bationary teachers is reviewed Who makes the final decision whether or not a teacher will be recommended to the board of education for tenure With whom should rest the final responsibility for deciding whether or not a probationary teacher should be recommended for tenure Whether or not a statement of reasons accom- panies a recommendation to the board of education Of tenure or dismissal To what extent probationary teachers who need help receive adequate assistance in removing deficiencies and the kinds of assistance given The effect of the program of teacher evalua- tion on the morale of probationary teachers Whether or not the evaluation of teachers in- creases teaching effectiveness The extent to which the board of education is in agreement with the present program for evaluating teachers for tenure The major problems or Obstacles encountered in carrying out an effective program for evaluating teachers for tenure Recommendations for improving the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure Whether or not the formal, organized program for evaluating teachers for tenure should be continued. 32 Initiation and Development of the Teacher Evaluation Program The board of education member from School District F stated that, to his knowledge, his district did not have a teacher evaluation program. The superintendents were most frequently mentioned by both the superintendents and principals as the persons primarily responsible for initiating teacher evaluation programs in all six school districts. However, both the superintendents and principals marked the answers "other school administrators," "teachers," "supervisory staff," and "board of education" enough times to indicate that these persons also had some part in initiating these programs. One superintendent indicated that his district's program was initiated by a committee representing the teachers and the superintendent. Another superintendent, who had responded that he, other school administrators, and the supervisory staff had initiated the develOpment of the teacher evaluation program, was asked during an interview about teacher interest in initiating the program. He responded to the effect that the teachers showed no interest at first. However, after the administration had held a series of meetings with teachers on the subject, they became apprehensive and fearful about such a program. 33 The board of education received little mention as the group primarily responsible for initiating the develOp- ment of an evaluation program. In addition, no respondent checked the terms "county (intermediate) superintendent" or "community group, which had been included as possible answers to the question. According to the respondents, the superintendents and principals had the greatest part in the study and develOpment of the six school districts' programs. The principals indicated that supervisors and teachers had some part. The terms "county (intermediate) superinten- dent" and "laymen" were not checked by anyone. Two unique groups mentioned by the superintendents of School Districts C and F as being involved in the study and develOpment of their programs were a "committee of teachers and the superintendents" and a "committee of teachers and principals." However, the principals of these districts did not agree with their superintendents. From an interview with a secondary principal in District D, it was learned that the study and develOpment of that school system's program was done by a committee composed of the superintendent and representatives of the principals, teachers, and board of education. Finally, each board of education member who was sent an inquiry was asked: "In your Opinion, who should be involved in the formulation of policy relating to the 34 evaluation of teachers?“ The board member from District F who responded believed that the formulation of such policy should be the responsibility of the board in con- junction with the central staff administrators. Familiarity Of Teachers with Their School Districts' Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Probationary and tenure teachers were asked in their inquiries to indicate how familiar they were with their school districts' formal, organized programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. The information from the teachers disclosed that all of them knew such programs existed in the six school districts. They showed no appreciable differences in their answers. However, it should be emphasized that there was a noticeable difference between the fact that teachers knew such programs existed and their knowledge Of the contents and procedures in the programs. Further analysis of the data revealed that the teachers of School District E were least likely to have a copy of their system's policies concerning evaluation. Although the teachers of the six districts who responded to the original question did know that their districts had formal, organized evaluation programs, the data and the additional comments showed their familiarity with the program stOpped with knowledge of its existence. 35 To clarify this point, the teachers were asked to specify when the program was exPlained to them. When the School District's Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Had Been Explained to the Teachers Eighty-three or 84.7 percent of the ninety-eight reSpondents reported that their school systems' programs had been explained to them before or during their first year in the system. Only nineteen or 19.4 per cent had received an explanation of their districts' evaluation programs when they were interviewed for their positions. Fifteen or 15.3 per cent had never received any explana- tion. Eight of the fifteen teachers who marked this answer were from District A. The secondary probationary teacher from District B who was interviewed reported that her district's teacher evaluation program was explained to probationary teachers at a pre-school conference or workshop specifically planned for them. The secondary probationary teacher from District C who was interviewed eXplained that her district's program was explained at a meeting for new teachers held at the board of education Office early in the school year. The secondary probationary teacher from District E who was interviewed said: "Word of mouth from other teachers. At a teacher's meeting we were told that tenure was given as a matter of course at the end of two years." 36 The elementary probationary teacher from District F who was interviewed said that his system's program was ex- plained at a building staff meeting by a representative of the Michigan Education Association. Another elementary probationary teacher from District F commented that the program was eXplained to her "just before I was reviewed for tenure." From the data secured from the respondents and the remarks made by the persons interviewed, it would seem that a great majority Of the teachers received an eXplana- tion of their school systems' programs before or during their first year of teaching. However, the data also seemed to indicate that this task was usually neglected in District A. Also, it would seem that Districts B and C were the only districts of the six that made this ex- planation at a formal program for probationary teachers. A logical part of the eXplanation of a school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure would be a discussion of the person who was primarily responsible for teacher evaluation. Teachers would be legitimately interested in knowing what background and training their principals had to perform this function. 37 Specifig Preparation for the Evaluation of Teachers Given or Required Of Ehe Evaluators Of the seventy-two responses given to the question by the superintendents and principals, the item "one or more principals' meetings a year at which teacher evalua- tion is discussed" was marked twenty-three times or 31.9 per cent of the total. The item "written instructions" received sixteen or 22.1 percent of the total responses. Sixty-eight or 46.9 per cent of the 145 teachers who responded were uncertain of or did not know about the specific preparation given by their school systems. This fact was particularly prevalent in District A, in which seventeen or 73.9 per cent of the twenty-three teachers were uncertain or did not know. Those teachers who did know emphasized "written instructions" and "one or more principals' meetings a year at which teacher evaluation is discussed" as the major types of preparation. Twenty-eight or 19.3 per cent of 145 mentioned the first and twenty-five or 17.2 per cent, the second. These two types of preparation were the ones that had also been cited most often by administrators. Closely related to preparation for the evaluation of teachers would be the actual application of evaluation techniques. It would be important that principals be trained to apply these techniques. 38 Extent to Which Evaluators Had Preparation in the Application of Evaluation Techniqpes Both the probationary and tenure teachers indicated that "to little extent" the persons assigned the primary responsibility for evaluating teachers for tenure had adequate preparation in applying evaluation techniques. The tenure teachers gave a slightly higher average rating to the principals, 1.87 compared to 1.71, for the proba- tionary teachers. Neither group denoted that the prepara- tion was actually adequate since the average rating did not reach 2.00 or higher. Finally, fourteen probationary and tenure teachers answered "I don‘t know" to the ques- tion. Additional Types of Preparation Needed by the Evaluators The most frequent response by administators was "no answer." This response was interpreted to mean that they regarded the amount of preparation given evaluators as adequate. The teachers' major responses were "no answer" and "no recommendations." These responses were particularly interesting since the teachers had not re- garded their evaluators' preparation as adequate. From questions concerning the evaluators, the next questions sought information related to the teachers being evaluated. The first question dealt with the duties and responsibilities of probationary teachers. 39 Extent to Which the Role of Probationary Teachers Had Been Clearly Def1ned All five superintendents who responded indicated that the role of probationary teachers had been clearly defined "to some extent." The average rating in each case was 2.00. In District C, three out of the four groups of respondents agreed that the role of probationary teachers had been adequately defined by compiling average ratings of "to some extent" (2.00) or better. The respective average ratings for the four groups of respondents were: superintendent-2.00, principals-3.00, probationary teachers- 2.00, and tenure teachers-1.29. The respondents from the other five districts indicated that the role of the pro- bationary teacher was inadequately defined. Extent to Which "Good Teaching? Had Been Clearly Defined "Good teaching" had not been clearly defined in any of the six districts. The Effect of a Teacher's Knowledge of the Program for EvaluatingJ TeaEhers for Tenure on His or Her a Decision to Accept a Teaching Position One hundred of 106 teachers responding indicated' that their knowledge Of the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure had no effect on their decision to accept a teaching position. No differences in attitude were shown between probationary and tenure teachers. 40 The Effect of Knoyledge of the School System's Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure on a Teacher's Intention to Remain in the School System The most important response to the question was that such knowledge had no effect on the intentions of probationary and tenure teachers to remain in any or all of the six school districts. The Effectiveness of an Instrument in a Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Districts A and F did not have an official instru- ment which was used in their programs. The respondents from Districts C and E believed that their instruments were effective devices. The respondents from B and D did not believe that their instruments were effective devices. Extent to Which Emphasis Should Be Placed upon the Use of Instruments in the Evaluation of Teachers for Tenure Only the respondents from Districts C and E be- lieved that "some" emphasis should be placed upon the use of instruments. The majority of the respondents from all six districts saw little or no need for instruments to be used. Extent to Which ApprOpriate Steps Were Taken to Insure That All Evaluative Information COncerning Teachers RemainedTConfidenEiaI The respondents frOm a majority of the six districts, all except the respondents from District A, indicated that the steps taken were adequate. The 41 probationary and tenure teachers of District A noted that "little" was done to maintain confidential status for evaluative information in their school district. Kinds of Information Which Were RecOrded and/or Filed in the Personnel Records Of ProBatiOnarnyeachers NO attempt was made to discover whether the superintendent and principals agreed or disagreed with each other. It was assumed that the principals probably maintained a personnel record or file for each teacher under their supervision, in addition to the personnel records kept up-to-date in the superintendent's office, and that the principals' records might or might not con- tain the same material as those in the superintendent's office. According to the respondents, the major type Of information recorded and/or filed in the personnel records of probationary teachers was "college credentials." This item was checked twenty-nine times. The second most prevalent item was "summaries of evaluations by administra- tors and supervisors." This item was checked twenty-seven times. The third highest number of responses, twenty-two, was given to "summaries Of conferences with administrators and/or supervisors." Receiving just one response less than the latter item were both "records of professional growth activities" and "anecdotal reports." Each of these items was checked twenty-one times. 42 During an interview, the superintendent of District A was asked to cite examples of the professional growth activities recorded in the personnel records of the probationary teachers. He gave two examples: reports of extensive travel and additional course work. College credentials were the most prevalent item to be found in personnel records of probationary teachers because these were requested by the hiring agent of each district to study before Offering a teacher a position. The other items were important parts of a school district's program for evaluating teachers for tenure. Therefore, it could be concluded that the most important kinds of in- formation placed in the personnel records of probationary teachers after they had begun their duties were items that were a part of, or related to, the districts' programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. Extent to Which the System of Maintaining Personnel Records for Teacher Evaluation Purposes Was Adequate Five superintendents marked "some" or "much," indicating that their systems were adequate. However, the average ratings computed from the principals' answers for Districts A, B, C, D, and F all signified an answer of "to little extent," meaning that the system of main- taining personnel records was inadequate. The principals of District E indicated that the "system" was adequate by compiling an average rating of 2.22. 43 Explanatory remarks by nine of the respondents offered no pertinent information. Since the responses of superintendents and principals were so divergent, it was impossible to reach conclusions regarding the adequacy of the systems. Who Was Primarily Responsible for Reviewing the Accumulated Data Regarding Probationary Teachers Eighteen or 51.4 per cent of the thirty-five responses indicated that the principal was the staff mem- ber in the six districts who was primarily responsible. Other resPonses to the question pointed out that the principal was assisted in this task by the superintendent and assistant superintendent. HowIOften the Accumulated Data Regarding Probationary Teachers Was Reviewed Seventeen or 70.8 per cent of the twenty-four respondents marked "twice a year." Seven or 29.2 per cent of the respondents indicated that the review took place "three times a year." Even though the respondents differed concerning the frequency of such a review, all Of them noted that such a review took place. The next step in analyzing the contents and pro- cedures of the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure of the six school districts was to ascertain who made the final decision whether or not a teacher was recommended to the board of education for tenure. 44 WhoMade the Final Decision Whether or Not a Teacher Would Be Recommendedito the Board of Education for Tenure The term "principal" received eighty-nine or 53.9 per cent of the 165 responses to the question. The term "superintendent" received fifty-three or 32.1 per cent of the 165 responses. From this data it could be concluded that the final decision was an administrative one shared by a principal and the superintendent. However, this procedure varied slightly from district to district. Having found out who actually made the final de- cision, the respondents' Opinions concerning who should have that reSponsibility were sought. The purpose of this question was to ascertain whether or not the respon- dents thought there were other persons in their districts who were better qualified to make this decision. With Whom Should Rest the Final Responsibility for DegidingWhether or Not a Probationary Teacher Should Be Recommended for Tenure The term "principal" received seventy-eight or 52.0 per cent of the 150 responses to the question. The term "superintendent" received thirty-three or 22.0 per cent of the responses. "A tenure committee" was marked twenty-two times, 14.7 per cent of the total. Therefore, the respondents thought that the decision should be made by the principal with the assistance of the superintendent. 45 Whether or Not a Statement of Reasons Accompanied a Recommendation to tHe Board of EducatiOn of Tenure or Dismissal Since the superintendent was the chief administra- tive officer of each of the six school districts, it was assumed that he would know whether or not such a statement accompanied a recommendation. Principals of Districts A and F did not completely agree with their superintendents' answers of "No" to the question. Probably they did not understand the question or they were misinformed. The superintendents and principals of Districts B, C, and D and the principals Of District E indicated that a statement did accompany the recommendation to their boards, indicating a majority of the six school districts did follow this procedure. To What Extent Probationary Teachers Who Needed Help Received Adequate Assistance in Removing Deficiencies and the Kinds of Assistance Given The administrators compiled average ratings of "some" or better. Probationary and tenure teachers com- piled average ratings of "little" or less. There was no agreement between administrators and teachers in any of the six districts. Since the teachers of the six districts were best qualified to judge whether or not adequate assistance was given to probationary teachers, it was apparent that the 46 districts were giving little, if any, assistance to probationary teachers to remove deficiencies. The respondents were also asked: "Please describe the kinds of assistance given." According to their answers, the most important kind of assistance was visits (class- room Observations) from principals and conferences with them. This type of assistance was most prevalent in all six districts. The Effect of the Program of Teacher Evaluation on the Morale of Probationary Teachers "Not affected morale" received the majority of the responses in the six districts, seventy-seven or 63.1 per cent of the 122 responses. Whether or Not‘the Evaluation of Teachers Increased Teaching Effectiveness Eighty-one or 69.8 percent of the 116 respondents believed that the evaluation of teachers increased teach- ing effectiveness. The Extent to Which the Board of Education Was‘in Agreement with thgyPresent Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure The respondents from all six school districts indicated that their boards of education were in agreement with the present programs "to some extent." The respon- dents from District D noted that their board of education was in agreement "to much extent." 47 Major Problems or Obstacles Encountered in Carrying Out an Effective Program for EvaIuating Teachers for Tenure For the six school districts as a whole, the major problems encountered were "lack of time for evaluation" and a "lack of objective evaluation." The first item received twenty-two of the ninety-one responses. 'The second item received fifteen of the ninety-one resPOnses. The respondents Offered their recommendations for solutions to these problems. Recommendations for Improvements in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure The recommendation made most often by the persons responding from all six school districts was: "more time should be devoted to classroom observations by the evalu- ators." It received twenty-three out Of the ninety-eight responses. In second place according to number of responses was "evaluation by a committee" which received fifteen responses. In third and fourth places were: "a more objective evaluation instrument should be develOped" and "new teachers should receive a thorough explanation of the evaluation program." Whether or Not the Formal, Organized Program for Evaluating Teachers fOr Tenure Should Be Continued Without exception, the majority of the respondents, 112 or 92.6 per cent of 121, indicated that their system's 48 program should be continued. In fact, only nine or 7.4 per cent of the 121 respondents from all of the districts marked "No" as their answer. Many respondents suggested some specific changes which should be made. CHAPTER III THE PURPOSES, STANDARDS, SOURCES OF DATA, AND PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE OF THE SIX DISTRICTS The purposes of this chapter are: (l) to ascertain what purposes, standards, sources of data, and practices and procedures were components of the programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in the six school districts selected for intensiVe study; and (2) to discover from the respondents their opinions of the actual or potential value of such components to a program for evaluating teachers for tenure. The complete data upon which this chapter is based were placed in Tables 3.1 through 3.15 in Appendix C on pages 124 through 141. Chapter III is divided into four major sections: 1. The purposes of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure 2. The standards by which the work of probation- ary teachers is evaluated 3. The sources of data for making judgments about the work of probationary teachers 4. Practices and procedures in programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. 49 50 The Purposes of Programs for Evaluating Teaéhers for Tenure No single purpose, of the seventeen purposes listed, was included in the evaluation programs of all six school districts. Both "to assess the status and quality of teaching performance" and "to promote the professional develOpment of teachers by helping them be- come aware of their strengths and weaknesses" were in- cluded in the evaluation programs of four of the six school districts, B, C, D, and E. The purpose "to recog- nize excellence in teaching" was included in the evaluation programs of three districts, C, D, and E. The groups of respondents from the six school districts indicated that the purpose "to promote the pro- fessional development of teachers by helping them become aware of their strengths and weaknesses" should be included in the evaluation programs of all six school districts. The next most pOpular purposes for inclusion were: "to assess the status and quality of teaching performance," "to give assistance to teachers who need help," "to improve instruction," and "to assist the teacher in achieving success." Each one was listed by four school districts' respondents. In comparing the purposes which should be included with the purposes that were actually included, it was found that "to assess the status and quality of teaching 51 performance" and "to promote the professional development of teachers by helping them become aware of their strengths and weaknesses" were common to both lists. If a "model" school district or any of the six school districts under study were to fulfill these pur- poses, it would be necessary to evaluate actual teacher performance. Such evaluation would have to be based upon specific standards of performance. The Standards by Which the Work of Probatiopary Teacfiers Was Evaluated The standards "effective classroom management (. . .)" and "desirable personal characteristics (. . .)" were included in the evaluation programs of all six districts. The standards "adequate knowledge Of subject matter," "effective use Of apprOpriate teaching methods and techniques," and "satisfactory interpersonal rela- tionships (. . .)" were included in the evaluation pro- grams of five out Of the six districts. The standards "organization of work and preparation of daily lesson plans," "providing for individual differences in pupils," "use Of instructional and audio-visual materials," "develOp- ment of such personal attributes in pupils as critical thinking, creativity, personal habits of health, cleanli- ness, and courtesy," "regard for the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being of pupils," "participation 52 in faculty meetings, curriculum development, and faculty committees," and "professional attitudes (. . .)" were included in the programs of four districts. The groups of reSpondents from the six school districts indicated that these standards should be in- cluded in their evaluation programs: Regard for the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being Of pupils Desirable personal characteristics (. . .) Professional attitudes (. . .) Effective use of apprOpriate teaching techniques Recognizes and understands the needs of the child, the adult, and the community Satisfactory interpersonal relationships (. . .) Adequate knowledge of child growth and development. The following standards were recommended for inclusion in the programs of the six districts by the groups of respondents of five of those school systems: Adequate knowledge of subject matter Organization of work and preparation of_daily lesson plans Providing for individual differences in pupils. The following standards were recommended for inclusion in the programs of the six districts by the groups of respondents of four of those school systems: Use of instructional and audio-visual materials Development of such personal attributes in pupils as critical thinking, creativity, personal habits of health, cleanliness, and courtesy Effective classroom management (. . .). In comparing the standards which should be included in the evaluation programs of the six school districts with the standards that were actually included, it was found that these standards were common to both lists: 53 Adequate knowledge of subject matter Organization of work and preparation of daily lesson plans Providing for individual differences in pupils Use of instructional and audio-visual materials Development of such personal attributes in pupils as critical thinking, creativity, personal habits of health, cleanliness, and courtesy Effective classroom management (. . .) Regard for the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being of pupils Desirable personal characteristics (. . .) Professional attitudes (. . .) Effective use of apprOpriate teaching methods and techniques Satisfactory interpersonal relationships (. . .). The standard "use and interpretation of tests, and measurement of pupil capacity and achievement" was not included in the evaluation program of any of the six school districts. The standards "extraclass participa- tion (. . .)" and "professional growth (. . .)" were in- cluded in the evaluation program of only one of the six districts. TO fulfill the purposes of a program for evaluat- ing teachers for tenure and to base the work of probationary teachers on specific standards, it was necessary to gather the necessary data from several sources. The Sources of Data for Making Judgments About the Work of Probationary Teachers The only source of data included in the evaluation programs Of all six school districts was "classroom Observation." The source "evaluation of teachers by school administrators" was included in the evaluation 54 programs of all of the districts except District E. The next most frequently included source was "teacher's cumu- lative personnel record information," which was included in the programs of Districts B, D, and E. The only other sources included were "teacher's participation in commun- ity activities" in the evaluation program of District D and "teachers' records of additional training" in the evaluation programs of Districts D and F. Eleven of the sixteen sources of data were not included in the evalua- tion programs of any of the six school districts. In comparison, the source of data, "classroom Observation," was recommended for continued inclusion in the evaluation programs of Districts A, B, C, D, and E. The source of data, "evaluation of teachers by school administrators," was recommended for continued inclusion in the evaluation programs of Districts A, B, C, and D. "Teachers' records of additional training" was deleted in District F but retained in District D. "Teacher's cumu- lative personnel record information" and "teachers' participation in community activities" were deleted by the respondents. The only sources of data which were recommended for addition to the programs of the six school districts were: Teacheg self-evaluation - School Districts C, E, an F Evaluation of teachers by supervisors - School Districts C, D, and E 55 Evaluation by outside professional experts - School District D. The purposes, standards, and sources of data could be implemented through certain practices and procedures. Practices and Procedures in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure The forty-two SUperintendents who had returned usable questionnaires, from the fifty-nine original questionnaires sent to the superintendents of Michigan school districts which had tenure for teachers prior to mandatory teacher tenure, had indicated that the principal had primary responsibility for evaluating the work of probationary teachers. To substantiate this point, the probationary teachers were asked the same question. Who Had Primary Responsibility for Evaluating the Work of Probationary Teachers Forty-seven or 90.4 per cent of the fifty-two probationary teachers who answered the question designated the principal as the person who had primary responsibility for evaluating the work of probationary teachers in all six school districts. Three probationary teachers from District A designated the superintendent as the person responsible. One probationary teacher from District B designated the assistant superintendent as the person responsible. Another probationary teacher from District B designated a helping teacher as the person responsible. 56 Since the evaluation of probationary teachers was a major task and could be time consuming, the probationary teachers were asked: "Who, if anyone, assists in evaluat- ing your work as a teacher?" Who Assisted in Evaluating the Work Of Probationary Teachers The probationary teachers' responses to the question were so mixed that it was impossible to make any judgments. Both the principals and probationary teachers were asked to designate how many times probationary teachers had been Observed in their classrooms so far during the school year. How Many Times the Classroom Teaching of Probationary Teachers Had Been Observed by Their Principals The twenty-eight principals reported a much higher number of observations of probationary teachers' work than did the fifty-two teachers; 263 observations compared to ninety-three Observations. It was highly probable that the two groups differed over what each considered to be a "classroom observation," in regard to the purpose and length of such a visit. Both groups pointed out that the predominant length of time of a classroom observation was "at least five minutes, but less than ten minutes." One hundred thirty-four or 57 51.0 per cent of the 263 responses made by the principals to the question were in this block of time. Fifty or 53.8 per cent of the ninety-three responses made by the probationary teachers to the question were in this block Of time. The principals reported that only thirty-five or 13.3 per cent of the 263 observations made were "forty minutes or more" in length. The teachers reported that only ten or 10.8 per cent of the ninety-three observations made were of "forty minutes or more." The principals and teachers were asked to indicate whether or not the evaluator had held a conference with the teacher following each observation. Had the Evaluator Held a Conference with the Teacher Following Each Observation Forty-five or 63.4 per cent of the seventy-one persons who responded from all six districts indicated that a conference was not held by the evaluator and teacher following each classroom Observation. If the principal and teacher respondents indicated that a conference was not held with the teacher following each observation, they were asked to cite how many con- ferences the principals had held with probationary teachers following classroom observations. 58 How Many Conferences Had Been Held with Each Probationary Teacher Following Classroom Observations 'The probationary teachers of all six school districts answered that no conferences had been held with them by their evaluators after any classroom observations. The responses by the principals of all six school districts varied from no conferences to six. It would appear that there was no established policy in any of the six school districts regarding the number of conferences which should be held between principals and probationary teachers following classroom observations. Number of Evaluations of Probationary Teachers' Work in Which an Instrument Was Used A study Of the total number of responses to the question revealed that the respondents were almost evenly divided between zero or no evaluations and two evaluations in which an instrument was used. Whether or not an instrument was used, it was important that the teachers be informed of the contents of their evaluations. How Probationary Teachers Were Informed of Their Evaluations In considering all six school districts, it was evident that all of them made an attempt to inform 59 probationary teachers of their evaluations. The predominant means of providing that information was giving COpies of the evaluation reports to them. Forty-five or 45.5 per cent of the ninety-nine reSpondents from all six school districts marked that answer. The second most pOpular means of informing probationary teachers of their evaluations was providing that report orally. Twenty-five or 25.5 per cent Of the ninety-nine respondents marked that answer. Even though probationary teachers were often given copies of their evaluation reports, the original report was either kept by the evaluator or sent to the superin- tendent's office. To indicate that probationary teachers had seen the original evaluation reports, a possible pro- cedure to use was to have the teachers sign the report. Were Probationary Teachers Asked to Sign the Evaluation Summaries Nine principals and probationary teachers from District A answered "NO." In Districts C, D, and E, the respondents clearly indicated that the probationary teachers were asked to sign their evaluation summaries. In Districts B and F, the respondents were evenly divided between the "Yes" and "No" answers, so no infer- ence could be derived. 60 Signing evaluation summaries did not indicate that probationary teachers were in agreement with their evaluations. Extent to Which Probationary Teachers Were in Agreement with the Evaluations Made of Their Work In all school districts except District F, the principals and probationary teachers indicated that pro- bationary teachers were in agreement with their evalua- tions "to some extent" or "to much extent." The predominant answer was "to some extent." The probationary teachers of District F responded "to little extent" to the question as compared to the principals who indicated "to much extent." EXplanatory remarks presented by many of the respondents did not provide any additional information. Therefore, it could be inferred that the probationary teachers Of Districts A, B, C, D, and E agreed with their evaluations. Since the probationary teachers of District F did not always agree with the evaluations of their work, it might be possible for them to submit additional evaluative information. 61 Provisions in the Program of Evaluation for Probationary Teachers to Offer Additional Information if Their Evaluations Had Been Undeservedly Low The principals and probationary teachers of District C were the only respondents who were sure that probationary teachers could submit this kind Of informa- tion. In the other five districts, the respondents divided their answers between "Yes," "No," and "Don't know." Voluntary Submission of Additional Information by Probationary Teachers Which Would Be Useful in the Evaluation of Their Work The data indicated that the probationary teachers of all six school districts had "to little extent" voluntarily submitted information. Only the principals of Districts C and F had marked "to some extent," and the probationary teachers of both school systems had marked "to little extent." In addition to voluntarily submitting additional information, it could be possible for probationary teachers to evaluate themselves or seek the assistance of others to do so. Ways in Which Probationary Teachers Evaluated, Or Sought Assistance in Evaluating Their Own Work The responses of the principals and probationary teachers were so evenly divided in the individual school 62 districts between "through the use of self-rating or self-evaluating instruments," "through requests to admin- istrators and/or supervisors to observe some phases of their teaching and to assist in evaluating it," "through requests for evaluation conferences with administrators and/or supervisors regarding some phase of their teaching," and "through the use of tests to measure pupil growth" that no inferences could be derived from the data for each school district. The total number of responses from all six districts were also quite evenly divided between these possible answers. However, thirty-one or 34.1 per cent of the ninety-one total respondents marked the answer "requests to administrators and/or supervisors to Observe some phases of their teaching. . . ." Ways in Which Probationary Teachers Had Been' Encouraged by Others to Evaluate Their Own Work In each of the six school districts, the predom- inant method used was "through individual conferences with administrators and/or supervisors." In Districts E and F, major emphasis was also placed upon ". . . suggestions to use self-rating or self-evaluating instruments." The respondents from all six districts marked "through indivi- dual conferences with administrators and/or supervisors" thirty-three times out of a total of sixty-seven responses or 49.3 per cent of the total responses. study: CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY, AND MODEL PROGRAMS Conclusions The following conclusions were derived from this The idealistic program for evaluating teachers for tenure presented in the review of the literature was not practiced in the six school districts studied intensively. The sole purpose of the programs studied was to gather evidence to use when the time came to decide whether or not to recommend a teacher for tenure status. The programs studied did nothing to improve actual teaching performance. The major emphasis in the programs studied was upon the teachers' ability to gain and maintain control Of students and the learning situation. The programs studied served to stifle teacher creativity and stressed conformity. Instruments were not wanted or needed in the programs studied. The members of the boards of education of the districts whose programs were studied did not have sufficient knowledge of or sufficient interest in their districts' programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. Programs for evaluating teachers for tenure were not considered a matter of priority in the school districts studied. Teachers and administrators in the districts whose programs were studied did not have equal knowledge or equal understanding of the compo- nents and Operations of these programs. 63 64 10. Communication between the teachers and evaluators during the evaluation process was almost non-existent. 11. The evaluators in the programs studied were not adequately prepared for this task. Recommendations for Further Study The following items need further study: 1. Does or can evaluation for tenure improve teacher performance? 2. Can teacher evaluation be used to encourage teacher and student creativity and critical thinking? 3. How to make teacher evaluation a positive instead of a negative process. 4. The effects of professional negotiations and/ or collective bargaining upon programs for evaluating teachers for tenure and teacher evaluation in general. 5. The training needed by the evaluators - con- tent, who should do the training, etc. Model Programs Two model programs will be presented. Model Pro- gram A will be based upon the review of the literature and the respondents' answers to the questions asked and their Opinions of what components should be included in programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. This model reflects the emphasis in the Conclusions that programs for evaluat- ing teachers for tenure are ends in themselves and do not accomplish the most important purpose of improving teacher jperformance. Therefore, in Model Program B an attempt twill be made to present a program which will help accomplish that purpose. 65 Model Program A The model program would be based on a board of education policy regarding the evaluation of teachers for tenure. The program would be initiated, studied, and developed COOperatively by board members, administrators, and teachers. The program would be eXplained to prospective teachers when they are interviewed for a position. The principals would receive training in the evaluation of teachers and would be given adequate time to evaluate. The role of the probationary teacher and the definition of good teaching would be adequately explained. An instrument, a narrative form, check list, or rating scale, would be used by the evaluators. All evaluative information concerning teachers would remain confidential. The accumulated data regarding probationary teachers would be reviewed twice a year. The final decision whether or not to recommend a teacher for tenure to the board of education would be (shared by the superintendent and principal. A statement of reasons would be sent with the recommendation. The purposes Of this program for evaluating teachers for tenure would be: 1. To assess the status and quality of teaching performance 2. TO promote the professional develOpment of teachers by helping them become aware of their strengths and weaknesses 66 3. To give assistance to teachers who need help 4. To improve instruction 5. To assist the teacher in achieving success. The standards of this program for evaluating teachers for tenure would be: 1. Adequate knowledge of subject matter 2. Organization of work and preparation of daily lesson plans 3. Providing for individual differences in pupils 4. Use of instructional and audio-visual materials 5. Development of such personal attributes in pupils as critical thinking, creativity, per- sonal habits of health, cleanliness, and courtesy 6. Effective classroom management 7. Regard for the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being of pupils 8. Desirable personal characteristics 9. Professional attitudes 10. Effective use of apprOpriate teaching methods and techniques 11. Recognizes and understands the needs of the child, the adult, and the community 12. Satisfactory interpersonal relationships 13. Adequate knowledge Of child growth and develOp- ment. The sources of data for this program for evaluating teachers for tenure would be: 1. Evaluation of teachers by school administrators 2. Classroom observation. The evaluators would observe classroom instruction often and for periods of time of thirty minutes or more. A conference would be held with the teacher after each classroom observation. Teachers would be informed of their evaluations both in oral form and in written reports. The teachers would be asked to sign their evaluation summaries. 67 Teachers also would submit additional information if their evaluations were low. Model Program B The program would be initiated by a "School Advisory Committee" composed of teachers, secondary school students, parents, laymen, board of education members, administrators, and subject area supervisors. The School Advisory Committee's major function would be to find ways to improve the educational program of the school district. The development of a teacher evaluation program to improve teacher performance would be a logical item for the committee to initiate. The program would be developpd by a committee composed of the "master teachers" of the school district. The committee members would be selected from the master teachers who received the highest number of nominations from present and former students, parents, laymen, fellow teachers, administrators, supervisors, and board of education members. The committee members would represent the following levels: primary, intermediate, junior high, and senior high. The committee members would also repre- sent many different subject areas. The committee would be named the "Teacher Evaluation Program Development Committee." 68 The Teacher Evaluation Program Development Committee would develOp the teacher evaluation policy to be adopted by the board of education. The committee would call upon secondary school students, teachers, parents, laymen, administrators, and board of education members to provide ideas and items for the program. The committee would be given the Opportunity to visit other school districts to view other teacher evaluation programs in Operation. The committee would report constantly during the develOpment period to all groups concerned to receive their comments and criticisms which would be used to im- prove the prOposed program. After its development, the program would be introduced into several different schools and teaching situations to try out, evaluate, and improve before introducing it into all classrooms of the school district. The program would have one purpose: to improve teacher performance. All other possible purposes, such as evaluating a teacher for tenure, could be accomplished as a part of fulfilling this purpose. Therefore, all teachers, not just probationary teachers, would be evaluated. The standards by which teachers would be evaluated in this program would be developed by the Teacher Evalua- tion Program Development Committee. The committee would use the nominations for master teachers as a starting point 69 because the persons making the nominations would have been required to state the qualities these teachers had to be named master teachers. The standards listed in Model Program A would probably also be some of-the standards used in this program. "Participation in professional growth activities" would be an additional standard. The sources of data for this program would be teacher self-evaluation; evaluation by a team composed of the teacher himself, a master teacher at his grade level and/or subject area, a student (at the secondary level), the subject area supervisor, and the principal; classroom observations by any one or all members of the "Evaluation Team"; video taping of teacher performance for viewing and evaluation by the Evaluation Team; and, at the secondary level, student evaluation of the teacher. There would be at least one Evaluation Team per school with additional teams being added according to the size of the staff. The subject area supervisors and some master teachers would have to serve on more than one Evaluation Team. Since all teachers would be subject to evaluation, each Team would be responsible for several teachers. The Evaluation Team members would be trained to perform their function of improving teacher performance. Their training would take place through an in-service course or workshOp planned and led by the Teacher Evalua- tion Deve10pment Committee. Outside consultants and 70 "experts" would be brought into the program when needed. Teachers who were not members of Evaluation Teams would also be invited to participate in the course. The ulti- mate intent would be that every teacher would become a member of an Evaluation Team. Subjects to be emphasized in the course would be: what to look for in a teacher's performance when Observ- ing, how to correctly interpret different types of teach- ing behavior, how to hold a single or group conference with a teacher, how to help a teacher evaluate himself, what kinds of positive suggestions to give a teacher to improve performance, how to correctly interpret video recordings of teacher performance, how to complete evalua- tion forms, and how to establish rapport with the teacher being evaluated. The participants in the in-service course would observe demonstrations Of teaching performance in the class and in regular classrooms to perfect their skills as Observers, evaluators, and suggestors of techniques to improve teaching. The practices and procedures of the program would include an eXplanation of the program to prospective teacher employees when they are interviewed for a position. During the orientation program for new teachers, the pro— gram would be eXplained again by a member or members of one or more Evaluation Teams. The new teachers could be 71 divided by levels, primary, intermediate, junior high, and senior high, for this presentation. The entire emphasis of the presentation would be upon the improvement of teacher performance. Each year the Teacher Evaluation Program Committee, a permanent committee composed of the members of the original Teacher Evaluation Program Deve10pment Committee and other persons added as needed, would sponsor and hold a public meeting to evaluate and improve the program. All comments and criticisms made by those in attendance could be used to improve the program. Some type Of instrument would be used in the eval- uation program. However, there would not be one standard instrument. The instrument to be used would vary among the Evaluation Teams and would be develOped and/or selected by each Evaluation Team. The instrument used would be equally understood by all members of the Team, especially the teacher being evaluated. The instrument would serve only as a written record of the recommenda- tions and/or decisions made by the Evaluation Team.> Anything to be recorded on the instrument could be placed there only by unanimous agreement of the Team members. Members would affix their signatures to the instrument signifying such agreement. Teachers would be observed in person or via video tape by at least one member of an Evaluation Team each 72 week. All members of each Team would be required to observe their teachers at least once a month. More than one member Of the Team could Observe a teacher at the same time. Teacher and student members of Evaluation Teams would be given released time for Observations. Classroom observations would be planned so that the Observer would see a complete lesson or lessons taught. No Observation period would be less than thirty minutes in length. There would be no limit on the maximum length of an observation period. A conference would be held with a teacher after each classroom observation. If necessary, the teacher observed would be given released time for such a confer- ence. The Observer would stress both the strengths and weaknesses seen in the teacher's performance, and give the teacher suggestions for improvement. The teacher would feel free to react to the observer's comments. The Evaluation Team would hold a conference with each teacher at the end of each month to review and dis- cuss the teacher's progress in his teaching performance. Emphasis would be placed by the participants on the strengths and weaknesses observed in the teacher's per- formance during the month, the suggestions made to the teacher to improve his performance, the teacher's attempts to improve his teaching effectiveness, problems which still 73 need solving, and a general discussion of the teacher's progress toward master teacher status. An Evaluation Report for the month would be com- pleted by the Evaluation Team during the monthly conference. There would be no standard form for such a report; leaving the format and content up to the Evaluation Team. The contents of the report would reflect unanimous agreement by the members of the Team. All instruments completed during the month and other pertinent data would be attached to the Evaluation Report. All of these materials would contain the signa- tures of all Evaluation Team members. The complete set of materials would be sent to the superintendent's office for inclusion in the teacher's personnel file. All parties involved would keep a COpy of each item sent to the superintendent's Office. Weekly classroom observation and conferences and monthly conferences with the Evaluation Team would keep a teacher constantly informed about his teaching perform— ance, his progress toward master teacher status, and his progress toward tenure status or dismissal. Also, the use of an instrument and the monthly Evaluation Report would serve as written evidence. The Evaluation Team would recommend a teacher to the superintendent for tenure status or dismissal. Either recommendation would have to be agreed to by all 74 members of the Team. A dismissal recommendation could be made at any time if a teacher is completely ineffective and all efforts to help the teacher have failed. The superintendent could act on that type of recommendation immediately. All evaluative data would be kept confidential because it would be seen only by members of the Evaluative Team, including the teacher being evaluated, the secretary who types instruments and Evaluation Reports for the Team, the superintendent, and the secretary in charge of the personnel files at the superintendent's Office. Finally, the teacher evaluation program would serve as a source for in-service courses and workshOps in general teaching techniques, classroom control or disci- pline, the teaching of specific subjects, the unit approach to teaching, and effective use of teaching devices and audio-visual materials. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles and Periodicals Dugan, Ruth R. "Personality and the Effective Teacher," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (September, 1961), 335-337. Howsam, Robert B. "Facts and Folklore," The National Elementary Principal, XLIII (November, 1963i? 8-9. Kingston, Albert J., and Gentry, Harold W. "Criteria Which Teachers Believe Should Be Evaluated in Merit Rating," Peabodnyournal of Education, XLI (May, 1964), 338-342. Redfern, George B. "Teacher Evaluation: Reports of Practice," The National Elementary School Principal, XLIII (November, 1963), 57-60. Books Castetter, William B. Administering the School Personnel Program. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962. Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Knezevich, Stephen J. Administration of Public Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1962. Linder, Ivan H., and Gunn, Henry M. Secondary School Administration: Problems and Practices. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. Redfern, George B. How to Appraise Teaching Performance. Columbus: Séhool Management Institute, Inc.,Tl963. Smith, Edward W., Krouse, J., Stanley W., and Atkinson, Mark M. "Merit Increment." The Educator's EncycloPedia. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. 75 76 Reports Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA. Better Than Rating. A Report Prepared by the Commission on Teacher Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1950. Michigan. General School Laws. Lansing: Speaker Hines and Thomas, Inc., I959. Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Michigan. Supplement to The 1959 Revision of the General School Laws of Michigan. A Report Prepared by the Legislative Service Bureau. Lansing: Super— intendent of Public Instruction, 1964. Unpublished Materials Evans, Max Wellington. "An Analysis of Programs for Evaluating Probationary Teachers for Tenure in Selected Ohio School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961. Michigan State Department of Education. December, 1965 Report of Public School Districts of the State. Lansing, December, 1965. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLE 1.1 APPENDIX A TABLE 1.l.--The fifty-nine public school districts which were sent questionnaires. School districta Locationb Classc’ Airport Community Schools Carleton 4 Allen Park Public Schools Allen Park 3 Ann Arbor Public Schools Ann Arbor 3 Bath Community Schools Bath 4 Bay City Public Schools Bay City 3 Bedford Public Schools Temperance 4 Benton Harbor Public Schools Benton Harbor 3 Berkley Public Schools Berkley 3 Center Line Public Schools Center Line 3 Cheboygan Public Schools Cheboygan 3 Clintondale Public Schools Mount Clemens 4 Dearborn Public Schools Dearborn 3 North Dearborn Heights School District Dearborn Heights 4 Dearborn Heights School District #7 Dearborn Heights 3 Dearborn Township School District #8 Dearborn Heights 4 East Detroit Public Schools East Detroit 3 Ecorse Public Schools Ecorse 4 Ferndale Public Schools Ferndale 3 Fitzgerald Public Schools Warren 4 Flint Public Schools Flint 2 Fraser Public Schools Fraser 3 Garden City Public Schools Garden City 3 Hanover-Horton School District Horton 4 Harper Creek Community Schools Battle Creek 4 Harper Woods Public Schools Harper Woods 4 Hazel Park Public Schools Hazel Park 3 Highland Park School District Highland Park 3 Huron Valley School District Milford 4 Inkster City School District Inkster 3 Jefferson School District Monroe 4 Lakeview Public Schools St. Clair Schores 4 Lincoln Park Public Schools Lincoln Park 3 Livonia Public Schools Livonia 3 Madison Heights District Schools Madison Heights 4 Melvindale-Northern Allen Park Public Schools Melvindale 3 Monroe Public Schools Monroe 3 Oak Park Public School Oak Park 3 Plymouth Community School District Plymouth 3 77 78 TABLE 1.1.--Continued. School districta Locationb Classc'd Pontiac Public Schools Pontiac 3 Port Huron Area Schools Port Huron 3 Redford Union Schools, District #1 Detroit 3 River Rouge Public Schools River Rouge 3 Riverview Community School District Riverview 4 Rochester Community Schools Rochester 4 Romulus Township School District Romulus 3 Roseville Public Schools Roseville 3 Royal Oak Public Schools Royal Oak 3 St. Clair Shores Public Schools St. Clair Shores 3 South Redford School District Detroit 3 Taylor Township School District Taylor 3 Trenton Public Schools Trenton 3 Utica Community Schools Utica 3 Van Dyke Public Schools Warren 4 Walled Lake Consolidated Schools Walled Lake 3 Warren Consolidated Schools Warren 4 Waterford Township School District Pontiac 4 Wayne Community School District Wayne 3 Willow Run Public School District Ypsilanti 4 Ypsilanti Public Schools Ypsilanti 3 a"Who Has Tenure So Far?" Journal October 15 News, October 15, 1963, p. bIbid. Michigan Education 8. cMichigan State Department of Education, December, 1965 Report of Public School Districts of the State, Lansing, December, 1965. dSchool districts of the fourth class (4): school census of more than seventy-five and less than 2400 children between the ages of five and twenty. School districts of the third class (3): school census of more than 2400 and less than 30,000 children between the ages of five and twenty. School districts of the second class (2): school census of more than 30,000 and less than 120,000 children between the ages of five and twenty. APPENDIX B TABLES 2.1 THROUGH 2.33 APPENDIX B TABLES 2.1 THROUGH 2.33 Interpretations Of the data were based on points and items on which there was agreement among the respon- dents. Questions that began with "TO what extent. . . ." required a value judgment by the respondents. They were required to check one of four possible answers: none, little, some, and much. Each of these possible answers was given a numerical value: none-0, little-l, some-2, and much-3. An average rating was computed for each group of respondents-superintendents, principals, probationary teachers, tenure teachers-based on the number of times none, little, some, and much were checked by each group. The average rating for a group of respondents was computed by: (1) multiplying the number of responses given to none, little, some, and much by the numerical value given to each; (2) adding the products of the multiplications in item (1); and (3) dividing the total of the products by the total number of responses. The quotient was rounded off to the nearest hundredth for the average rating. 79 80 To cite an example, eleven probationary teachers of School District A gave these responses to a question: none-5, little-l, some-4, and much-l. The average rating was computed as follows: 5 1 4 1 (“10.115211 0 1 8 3 0 1 8 (2)3 '17 1.090 (3) 11/12.000 -_1_1 100 :2 10 Rounded off to the nearest hundredth, the average numerical value of the example was 1.09. An Average Rating Code was used to signify whether the average rating specified a rating of none, little, some, or much. The Average Rating Code used was: .00 - .99 = None 1.00 - 1.99 = Little 2.00 - 2.99 = Some 3.00 = Much To use the average ratings more effectively, the following procedures were used. In School Districts A, B, C, D, and F, in which the superintendents, principals, and probationary and tenure teachers responded to the questions, a component or procedure in their teacher 81 evaluation programs was effective or adequate if at least Ehree of EEEE groups responding compiled an average rating of "some" (2.00) or higher (2.01 to 3.00). Since the superintendent Of District E did not return his question- naire, a component or procedure in that district's teacher evaluation program was found effective or adequate if at least Eye of the three groups responding compiled an average rating of "some" (2.00) or higher (2.01 to 3.00). TABLE 2.l.--ReSponses by superintendents regarding who was(were) primarily responsible for initiating the develOpment of a program of teacher evalu- ation. Person or group Frequency Superintendent . . . . . . . . 4 Other school administrators . . . . . . . Supervisory staff . . . . . . Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . Board of education . . . . . . Committee of teachers and superintendent . . . . . . . NNNN H TABLE 2.2.--Responses by principals regarding who was (were) primarily responsible for initiating the development of a program of teacher evaluation. Person or group Frequency Superintendent . . . . . . . . 15 Other school administrators. . ll Supervisory staff . . . . . . 6 Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Board of Education . . . . . . 3 82 TABLE 2.3.--Responses by superintendents regarding who had a part in the study and develOpment of the program for evaluating teachers. Person or group Frequency Superintendent . . . . . . Principals . . . . . . . . Teachers . . . . . . . . . Board of education . . . . Committee of teachers 0 O O O O NNww and superintendents . . . . 1 Committee of teachers and principals . . . . . . . 1 TABLE 2.4.--Responses by principals regarding who had a a part in the study and develOpment of the program for evaluating teachers. Person or group Frequency 18 21 Superintendent . . Principals . . . . Supervisors . . . 12 Teachers . . . . . 12 Board of education . . . . . . 3 83 TABLE 2.5.--Responses by probationary and tenure teachers indicating their familiarity with their school districts' formal, organized programs for evaluating teachers for tenure. Frequency Probationary Tenure Means of familiarity teachers teachers Total Know it exists 39 39 78 Have been told about it 27 36 63 Have read school board policies concerning it 30 35 65 Have a copy of school system policies con- cerning it 32 32 64 TABLE 2.6.--Responses by probationary and tenure teachers indicating when their school systems' programs for evaluating teachers for tenure were ex- plained to them. Frequency Probationary Tenure Time of explanation teachers teachers Total When you were interviewed for a teaching position 9 10 19 After the interview but before school began 5 2 7 During the first school year 28 29 57 It was not eXplained, wasn't fully eXplained; Never 7 8 15 Total -- -- 98 £34 0.00H Nb NH N mm m m N HOUOB NH mm 0a pwuadgwu uo cm>fim wfi cofium tundmum Oflwaumam oz Ommmsomac ma COHumsHm>O umcommu noes: um .umsm can .cfium com3umn moocw luwwcoo stvfl>flOcH Oommsomflb ma COHDOOHO>O uwcommu coac3 on new» m mmcauooe .mamm IHOGHNQ OuOE no mco mcofluosuumca cmuuflux Ewumxm HOO£Om may >2 OouOmcomm mmonmxuoz no mEmuooum momusoo OOOHHOO as mewcfimue Hmuoe LO ucou mom Hmuoe .mcflum .udom .mcflum m m uofluumso nonhumso .mcflum .umsm .wcHum .uasm a upsuumso o possumso F xocosgwum .mcHum .umsm .mcHum .umsm OOMHOUOH Ho cm>am coflumumawum ofluaowmm m uofluumflo < uofluumflo .xmmu mflcu qu >usaanamcommmu humefium Oocmfimme mcomuom on» mo pouflsqou no O>mm mamummm doocom uwmcu mumcumwu mo coflumsam>m wcu new cofiuwummoud Ofiuflooem was: ocwpumqou mamafiocflum 0cm mucopcoucaummsm >2 mwmcommomuu.n.m mqmdh 85 o.ooa o.m mvH ma mm mm mm Ha vm Ha ma mm OH Hm ma mm HmuOB m Oommdomfic ma coaumsam>o Honomou nuanz um .umdm cam .caum coozuon moocmuomcoo HOOOA>AOCH m Oommsomflp ma Ooflums Iam>o HOQOOOD OOH£3 pm new» m mmcfluome .mammflocflnm OHOE HO Odo III mcofluosupmcw coupwnz III Eoummm Hoonom Ozu an cmuomcomm mmOSm Ixuo3 MO mEMHmOHm H momusoo OOOHHOO cw OQHGHMHB 5H 3oex u.:OO H «Casanova: Hence no unmoumm Hmuoe m uofluu -mfia m D posse uofluu ImHQ -mfla 0 poems posuu undue Imam -mfio m ¢ OOHHOUOH HO sm>Hm aowumummmum mewommm Imam mocwnwoum .xmmp mflnu Mom muflaflnflmcommou humeflum Oocmflmmm mcomumm may no OOHHOOOH Ho m>mm mEOpmmm Hoonom Hams» muonommu mo cowumsam>o map How :OHDOHOQOHQ owmaommm onu mcflcummmn mnmnomou OHOOOD UGO muma0HumnOHm an noncommmmll.m.m mamfle 86 TABLE 2.9.--Responses of probationary and tenure teachers regarding the extent to which_persons assigned the primary responsibility for evaluating teachers for tenure had adequate preparation in applying evaluation techniques. Frequency Averag I don't Respondents None Little Some Much Total Rating know Probationary teachers 5 8 23 6 42 1.71 6 Tenure teachers 5 5 19 10 39 1.87 8 Total 10 13 42 16 81 1.79 14 aThe numerical values used were none=0; litt1e=l; some=2; much=3. The average rating was computed by: (1) multiplying the number of responses for each answer by its numerical value; (2) adding the products of the multiplica- tions; and (3) dividing the sum of the products by the total number of responses. The responses listed under "I don't know" were not included. 87 wad III Houoa em . HoBmcm oz Ha mcoflumccoEEOoou oz m coaumsam>o uonomou mo poonnsm onu mo mcsum N mEoHnoumllmnonooou mo omcoa3ocxllmommoau N moonuoe mcflnomou mo huofinm> o no omOoHBch m momusoo omoaaoo m Amuouosuumcfl omoHHOO mnv mammflocfinm How mmcfluooe oOfl>Homch m mwuoufluo can mosvflcnoou cnmccmum mo om: n mmonmxuoz m Amumom m CH mv usmsou mGHoQ poonnsm uO\Ocm Ho>oa ocmum ozu npfl3 oocofinomxo mcflnoooa whosomou oussou . . Odo >HOOOflpmnoum ma Ho3mcm 02 m ocoz m maficflmuu oOH>Homch mammfloaflum Odo mucoccounwuomsm mocodvonm cocoon coflumuomoum mo momma mucooqommom .moswflccoou GOHDOOHO>o mcflmammm CH o>HoooH canonm muoumsao>o onu cowumummonm mo mommy HmcowquOm umn3 mafiauoocoo muonomop ouscou Odo .muosomou mumcoflumnoum .mammflocflum ~mucoccouqfluomsm mo noncommoMII.oa.m mamfie 88 mN.H n N III N N muonomou oudcoa oo.N mH v 5 III N muonomou mumc0HquOHm U oo.m N N III III III mHmQHOCHHm oo.N H III H III III usoccoucHuomsm Nm.H MH m n N H muonomou ondcoa om.H OH N m III m muonomou mnmcoHumnoum m oo.m v H m H III mHmmHocHum oo.N H III H III III ucoocoucHHomsm mm. m H N H m muonowou onscoa mo.H HH H e H m muonomou muchHumnoum d om.H m H m N III mHmmHocHnm oo.N H III H III III unoccoucHHomsm mcHumu Hmpoe nos: oEom oHupHH ocoz mucoccommom uOHHumHO OOMHG>¢ HOOQOW hocosvonm .OoGHmoO mHnooHo coon Om: mEoummm Hoonom uHonu OH muonomou NHOOOHDMOOHQ MO AmoHuHHHQH Imcommou .moHuOOV oHOH on» ucouxo ums3 Op mchHoocoo muonooou ouscou Odo .muonooou wumcoHumnoum .mHmmHOGHHm .mpcoccoucHHomsm an noncommomII.HH.N mHm¢ Hoosom mucoswoum .OoscHuGOUII.HH.N mnmfla 90 om.H o N H H N muonomou onscoa «H.N wH o m III N muonomou . mnmcoHuonoum O om.N N H H III III mHomHocHHm oo.N H III H III III unoccoudHHomOm mm.H HH H m m H muonomou ouscoa om.H OH III v m H muonooou muchHumnOHm m om.H v III N N III mHomHocHHm oo.N H III H III III ucocsoHcHHomOm HH.H m H N m m whosomou ouscoe ON.H OH III m N m whosomou HuocoHuonOHm « ov.H m III N m III mHomHOGHHm oo.N H III H III III usoccochHomsm mcHuou Houoe £052 oeom oHuuHH ocoz mucocsommom HOHHumHO ommuo>¢ Hoonom mocosgoum .mEoummm Hoosom HHozu OH OoaHmoO hHHooHO coon con :mcHnomou OOOO: ucouxo um£3 Ou OGHGHoOGOO whosooou onscou UGO .mnonomou mHOOOHumnOHQ .mHmmHOOHHm .mucopcoucHHomnm an noncommomII.NH.N MHm¢ Hoosom mocoswoum .UoOGHHGOUII.NH.N mHmmB 92 OOH m H OOH III Hmuoe OH H III m m m H III m m n H III O o O III III O O NH. H III HH m CH III III OH ¢ OHSCOE O III III O m m III III m m m III III m 0 OH III III HH 0 OH III H m O OH H III m a NewcoHu IOOOOO Hmuoe oHOmOHmoO oHOmOHmoO hwszm OH HOHOOOHO OoOomou ouoe mmOH OOHmHooO HOOOOO mo omme OOHpHmom OoHuHmom he uoommm oOu ope: oOu oOmz HOO OHO NOOoOOoOm .Eoummm HOOOOm on» OH OOHuHmom m umooom Op OOHmHooO OHoOu Oouoommm oOOOou How wHoOomou OOHOOOHm>o OOH Emnmoum .mEopmmm HOOOom OHoOu mo omOoHsoOx oOu 3o: OOHOOoO IOOO mOoOomou oOOOou OOo MOOOOHHOOOHQ an momOommomII.mH.N MHmOB 93 mm HH w ow Hmuoe O N H m O OH m H O m m III III m a «H. H III mH o OH N III m O NH m N n O Hmuos Oomou Op Oomou Op mOoHuOouOH he OOHOumHO OOHO3 OH oomHm OOHO3 OH oomHm uoommm uOO mooa HOOOOO oHOmuHmoO oHOmOHmoO ouoe m Eoumwm mmoH o Eoummm Eoummm oOu HOOOOm oOu oer O» mOOoB ome Op mOOoB hOOoOOoOm .Eoummm HOOOom oOu OH MOHOHOEOO mo mOOHpOopOH OHoOu OO oOOOou OOH mOoOomou OOHumsHm>o How Emumoum .mEoummm HOOOOm own «0 omOoH3OOx HHoOu mo uoommo oOu OOHOHoOOOO muonomou NOOOOHOOOOHm an momOommomII.vH.N MHmOB 94 mm «H N mm HouOB 0H. m III m O m m III O m n N III O O m III III m O OH N H HH O OH N H n O HOOOB Oomou OD Oomou Ou mOOHuOoDOH he uOHHumHO OOHOB OH oomHm OOHO3 OH oomHm poommm OOO moon HOOOOm oHOmOHmoO oHOmHHmoO oHOE O Eoummm mmoH O Eoummm HOOOOm oOu HOOOOm on» ome O» mOOoB oxme Ou mOOoB MOOoOOoOm .Eoummm HOOOOm oOu OH mOHOHmEoO mo mOOHu IOouOH OHoOu OO oOOOou How mOoOomou OOHOOOHO>o How Eoumonm .mEopmam HOOOom oOu mo omOoH3OOx HHoOp HO Hoommo oOu OOHOOOOOOO mOoOOOou oOOOou an momOommomII.mH.N mqua 95 mm.N m H N III III mOOOooou oHOOoB OH.H MH H m N m mHoOomou manOHumOOOm O OO.N N N III III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.N H III H III III uOoOOouOHHomOm HH.H m N m H m mOoOomou oHOOoB mN.N m m H H H mOoOomou mumOOHumOOOm m mH.H s H H N III mHmOHocHum OO.N H III H III III OOoOOopOHOomOm mO. m III N H m mOOOomou oOOOoB OO. O III III III O mHoOOOou manOHuononm O OO. O III H N N mHmmHOOHOm OO. .H III III III H uOoOOouOHOomOm OOHHOO HOOOB O05: oEOm oHuuHH oOoz muOoOOommom OOHHumHO ommuo>< HOOOom MOOoOvon .oHOOou How mOoOOOou OOHumsHm>o How oOH>oOAo>HH0ommo Om mes mEoummm HOOOOm OHoOu OH OomO H.0uo .Hmou .onOm OOHOOO .pmHH IxooOov pOoEOOOOOH OOH OOHO3 Ou uOouxo oOu OOHOOmOoH mOoOomop oOOOou OOO .mOoOomou NOOOOHOOOOOQ .mHmmHOOHOQ .muOoOOouOHOomOm HO momOommomII.OH.N mqmde 96 II OHH vN mm ON .mm III HmuOB HH.H 5 III m N N muonomou oHOOoB nH. O III III H m mOoOomou MOOOOHOOOOOO m ON.H m H III m H mHomHOOHOm OO.H H III III H III OOOOOouOHHomOm mv.N h m e III III muonomou oHOOoB OO.H m III m N H mHoOooou MOOOOHOOOOOO m NN.N m m m H III mHmmHOOHOm mm.H O m N H III muonooou oHOOoB Mm.H m III N III H mOoOOOou NHOOOHOOOOHA Q OO.N N H H III III mHOmHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III uOoOOouOHHomOm OOHOOO HOHOB OOOE oeom oHuuHH oOoz muOoOOommom OOHHumHO mUMHm>4 HOOSOM hOOoOOoOm .UOOOHHOOUII.OH.N mHmO HOOOOO NOOoOvoOm .oOOOoO OOm mOoOomoO mo OOHOOOHm>o oOO OH mOOoEOOOmOH mo om: oOO OOOO OoomHm on OHOOOm mHmmOmEo OOHO3 OO OOouxo oOO OOHOOmmoO mOoOOOoO oOOOoO OOO .mOoOomoO NOOOOHOOOOOO .mHmmHOOHOm .mOOoOOoOOHOomOm an momOommomII.wH.N MHmOB 98 II HNH OH HO ON NH III HOOOB OO.H m N m m H mOoOomou oOOOoe hm.H n N H m H mOoOomoO NOOOOHOOOOOO m ON.H v III H m III mHmmHOOHOm OO.H H III III H III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OO.N m H O H III mOoOomou oOOOoB MH.N m N m H III mOonoooO HOMOOHOOQOOO m OO.N m III m III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.H O H m H H mOoOOOoO oOOOoB OO.H N III H III H mOoOomoO mOOOOHOOOOOm Q OO.N N H H III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.N H III H III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OOHOOO HOOOB OOOS oEOm oHOOHH oOoz muOoOOOmoom OOHOOmHO ommOo>O HOOOOO >OOoOOOOm .UODOHOOOUII.OH.N MHmOB 99 OO.N m N H III mHmflOmmu. QHDGGB mn.N HH m m III III mOoOOOoO . MOOOOHOOOOOO O OO.m N N III III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OH.N h v H H H mOoOOOoO oOOOoB mv.N n O N H III mOoOOOoO NOOOOHOOOOOO m OO.N v N N III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOOOOHOomOO OO.H m H N III N mOOOomoO oOOOoB Hh.H n m H H N mOoOOOoO NOOOOHOOOOOO O ON.N v m III III H mHmmHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OOHOOO HOOOB OOOZ oeom oHOOHH OOoz mOOoOOommom OOHOOmHO ommOo>O HOOOOO HOOoOOoOm .HOHOOoOHmOOO OHmEoO mOoOOOoO OOHOOoOOOO OOHO IOEOOHOH o>HOmOHm>o HHm OOOO oOOmOH OO mEoOmhm HOOOOm OHoOO OH Ooxou oOm mmoum oOmHOmOOmmm OOHO3 OO OOoOxo oOO OOHOOoOOOO mOoOOOoO oOOOoO OOO .mOoOomoO HOOOOHOOOOOQ .mHmmHOOHOm .mOOoOOoOOHOomOm an momOommomII.mH.N MHmOB 100 II NOH HO mN m m III HOOOB Hh.N h m N III III mOoOOOoO oOOOoB ON.N m m H III H mOoOOOoO hOOOOHOmnOOm m OO.N m m N III III mHomHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OO.N m m H H III mOoOomoO oOOOoB OO.H n H m III H mOoOOOoO aOmOOHOmQOOm m OO.m m m III III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.N m m N III III mOoOOOoO oOOOoB OO.N N H III H III mOonoooO hOmOOHOOOOOm O OO.m N N III III III mHmmHOOHOm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm OOHOOO HOOOB OOOZ oEom oHOOHH oOoz mOOoOOommom OOHOOmHO Ogmefiw HOOSOW >OOoOUoOm .OODOHOOOUII.NH.N HHMOB 101. OH HN ON m N HOOOB mHmmHOOHOO OOoOOoO IOHOomOm mHOmHOOHOm HIV \OG) mHmmHOOHOm OOoOOoO IOHOoQOm r-IN mHmmHOOHOm OOOOOOO IOHOoQOm r—Im mHOQHOOHOm OOoOOoO IOHOomOm '3' (D I I I v—Iv-f Hv-I mHmmHOOHOO OOOOOou IOHOomOm {930; JGHQO satitAtqoe Airunmmoo go Splooaa sarirnrioe WOOJSSQID UIQQISO JO SpJOOBH sarirArioe q3MOJB Ieuorssa;01d go SplOOBH SlOSIAJBdnS Jo/pue Sloieiisrurmpe qqrm saouelaguoo JO SBIJQMWDS suetd uosset aIdmes silodel Teqopoauv SLIOI QEUIPAB ,SJOOOBOQ go seriemmns -JIBS sxostniadns pue SJOielisrurmpe Aq suotqenteAa go sailemmns sIeriuapalo 9631103 siuapuodsaa .mOocooou NOOOOHOOQOOQ mo mOOOOOO HoOOOmOom oOO OH OoHHw OO\OOO OoOOoooO oOo3 OOHOB OOHOOEOOOOH mo mOOHx mOOHOm> ocu OOHOOmooO mHmeHOOHOQ OOO mOOoOOouOHOomOm an momOommomII.mH.N MHmOB 13113819 Iooqos 102 II om O OH O H III HOOOB OO.H m III v H III mHomHOOHOm OO.N H III H III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm m NN.N m e m N III mHmOHoOHOm O omoH . N III H H III mflmmflUGHHm OO.m H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm a OO.H N III H H III mHmmHOOHOm I OO.N H H III III III OOoOOoOOHOoQOm U mh.H v .H H N . III mHmmHOOHOm OO.N H III H III III OOoOOoOOHOoQOm m hO.H m H H III H mHmmHOOHOm OO.N H III H III III OOoOOoOOHOomOm O OOHOOO HOOOB OOOZ oEOm oHOOHH oOoz mOOoOOommom OOHOOmHO ommOo>O HOOOOO NOOoOOoOm .oOmOOoem mes momomOOm OOHO IOOHm>o OoOomoO OOH mOOOOOO HoOOOmOom OOHOHOOOHoE Ho Eoumhm oOO OOHO3 OH OOouxo oOO OOHOOoOOOO mHmmHOOHOm OOo mOOoOOoOOHOomOm HO momOommomII.ON.N mHmOB 103 mm m m mH III Hmuoa w III III m mHmmHocHHm H H III III ucmwcmucHuwmsm m m w m H mHmmHoaHum m m III N H mHmmHocHHm N III H H ucmucmucHHmmsm a N III III N mHmmHocHum H III III H acmwcmuaHHmmnm 0 v N III N mHmmHucHHm H H III III ucwwcmucHuwmsm m m III N m mHmmHocHum N III H H #cmwcmucHHmmsm m Hmuoa unmocmu ucmccmu mHmmHonHHm mucmucommmm uUHHumHU IcHuwmsm IGHummsm Hoonom Ahusmmov .umm¢ hocmsvmum .mumnommu mumcoHumnoum mchnmmmu mgmc cwHMHsfidoom msu mnH3mH>mH How mHQHmcommmu NHHHmEHHm mm3 0:3 OCHcho Icoo mHmmHocHum 0cm mucmocmchummsm ha mmmcommmmII.HN.N mqmfia 104 vN b hH III III Hmuoa w m H III mHmmHocHHm H III H III pcquwucHHmmsm m w III w III mHmmHucHum m N III N III mHmmHocHum H III H III ucmocmchHmmsm a N III N III mHmmHocHHm H III H III ucwwcmucHHmmsm U m H N III mHmmHoGHum H III H III ucmccmchHmmsm m w m H III mHmmHocHum H III H III ucwccmuaHmesm ¢ Hmuoa Hmmw Ham» Ham» mucmwcommmm HOHHuch m mmEHu m moH3B m mono Hoozom mmusa mocmskum .cmBmH>mu mm3 mumnommu mumcoHumnoum mckummmH mumc UmumHsesoom map cmumo 3oz mchumo Icoo mHmmHocHum cam macmwcwucHHmmsm an mmmcommmmII.NN.N mamde 105 mN III H H m NH III Hmuoa m III H III m m mumnommu muncme mH III III H m HH mumnommu kHMGOHumnoum U N III III III N III mHmmHocHHm N III III III H H ucmccmuCHHmmsm Nm m III e n mH III Hmuoa vH m III H N m mumnomwu muscwa m III III N N m mumsommp humc0Humnonm m 9 III III N N N mHmmHocHum m III III H H H ucwccmchummsm Hm H H III MH mH III Hmuoa 5 III III III N m mumnomwu madame NH H III III m w mHflflUMOU humcoHumnonm « 0H III H III m w mHmmHocHHm N III III III H H ucmwcmuanmmsm Hmuoa mmuUHEEoo HOmH> ucmvcmu ucmmcwu HmmHo mucmvcommwm HUHHume mnscmu N Iummnm IGHHmmsm ICHHmmsm ICHHm Hoocom ucmumHmm< wocmnvmum .muscmu How coHumosvm mo unmon map 0p vmncmfieoomn mm3 stommp umnu #02 Ho HmnquB :onHomv HmaHm map mama 0:3 .muscmu How mHnHmHHm mEmomn Hmnommu m cw£3 .mcHwnmmmH mumsommu muzcmu can .mumnommu mumcoHumnoum .mHmmHocHHm .mucmccmucHHmmsm ha mmmcommmmll.mN.N mqmHMGOHumn0Hm m OH III III N m m mHmmHocHum N III III H III H ucmccmucHHmmsm mm III H N mH 5H III Hmuoa 0H III H H v v mumnommu musama m III III III N h mumnommu >MMG0Humnonm m wH III III H m m mHmmHoaHum 0H H III III m 0H III Hmuoa m H III III m m mumsomwu mnaama N III III III III N mumsommu mHMGOHquOHm a m III III III H N memHocHHm N III III III H H ucmvnmucHummsm Hmuoa mmuUHEEoo HomH> unmocmu unmvcmu HmmHo mucmvcommwm UUHuume muscmu m Iummsw IcHummsm IGHmesm ICHHm Hoonom ucmumHmmd mocmsvmum . UwDGHuGOUII . mm . N nun—”mafia 107 omH w NN m 0 mm mm III Hmunu mN H o III N m NH III HHUOh vH H v III H III m muwzommu muscme m III N III III m v muwnommu mumcoHumnoum m m III III III H III v mHmeocHum H III III III III III H ucmmcwucHuwmsm mN III m III III N VH III HOOOH n III H III III N v muwnommu muscwe m III H III III III v muwnumwu HOMCOHumnOum M NH III H III III e m mHmoHonHum NH N H III III m w III HnuOH n N III III III N m mumrunuu musamh N III H III III H III muwuummu ”Macaqudnoum n N III III III III H H mHmwMOcHum H III III III III H III ”umvcmucHummnm NN N v III III e mH III Hmuoe m III N III III H N muwcommu wuscmh mH N N III III m HH muwcummu HumCOHumnoum U m III III III III H N 338ch H III III III III H III ucwncmucHumugm mm H m N v m NH III HauOH NH H v H H III m mumnommu ouscmh OH Ill H Ill H N 0 MIHQCUGQU HumcoHumnoum m m III III H N III N mHmaHOCHum H III III III III H III ucwwcmucHuwmsm mN III m m III N mH III Hmuoe NH III N H III N h muwcumwu muscwe m III III H III m m mumcommu HumcoHquOOQ 4 w III H H III N N mHmmHOcHum N III III III III H H ucwvamucHuwmsm Hnuoe zcEOHacO OOOOHEEOO uOmH>ummsm ucmOCOucHuwunm ucmvcmucHumasm HmQHocHum mucwncoammm uOHuumHO ucwEuunOmo muscwu < uCOOmHmwd mocmsvmum . wIHSCOU HON UOOCOEEOOOH on UHSOLm umcomou humcoHOOQOMQ m uoc uo umnumnx mcHUHOOU HON MuHHHQHmcoamwu HOcHw Ozu ummu OHsocm E053 nuHR UCHCHOOCOO muocumwu wuscmu mam swuwcumou humcoHuODOuQ .mHmmHOCHuQ .mucmvcwucHuomsm an mmmuommomII.vN.N mHnMH 108 TABLE 2.25.-—Responses by superintendents and principals concerning whether or not a statement of reasons accompanied a recommendation to the board of education for tenure or dismissal. Frequency School district Respondents Yes No Total A Superintendent --- l l Principals 3 2 5 Total --- 3 3 6 B Superintendent l --- l Principals 3 l 4 Total --- 4 l 5 C Superintendent l --- l Principals 2 —-- 2 Total --- 3 --- 3 D Superintendent l --- l Principals 2 --- 2 Total --- 3 --- 3 E Principals 7 --- 7 Total --- 7 --- 7 F Superintendent --- l l Principals 5 --- 5 Total --- S l 6 Total --- 25 5 3O 109 ov.H m H H N H muonomou onscoa mo.H MH m m m N muonooou muocoHuonoum U oo.m N N III III III mHomHocHHm OO.N H III H III III ucoocoucHHomsm mn.H m m N m H muonooou ouscoa mN.H m H H m H muonooop mHocoHumnonm m OO.N v H N H III mHmmHOGHHm oo.m H H III III III ucoocoucHHomsm HH.H h H N H m muocomou ouscoa NN.H m N N H v muonooou mHocOHuonOHm N mN.N v H m III III mHomHocHum oo.N H III H III III ucoocoucHuomsm mcHumu Hopoe £052 oEom oHuuHH ocoz mucoocommom pOHHumHo ommuo>¢ Hoonom hocosvoum .moHocoHOHmoo mcH>oEoH OH oocoumHmmm ouoswoom oo>HoooH mHon cocoon 0:3 mEoummm Hoonom HHonp OH muonomou muocoHuonoum pcouxo uo£3 Op mchHoocoo muonoooo ouscoa Odo .muonomou mumcoHuonoum .mHoQHOCHum .mucoocoHCHHoQOm an momcommomII.mN.N mqmde 110 II HNH mN we mN ON III Houoa Hm.H HH N o m III muocomop ouscoa OO.H m III N H N muonooou HuchHquoum m ov.N m N m III III mHomHocHHm oo.N H III H III III ucoocouGHHomsm om.H h H v N III muonomou onscos mH.H m H N N m whosooou wuocOHponoum m ev.m m m m H III mHmmHocHum ov.H m N III H N muonomou ouscos mm. m III III N H whosooou mumcoHuonoum o oo.N N III N III III mHomHocHum oo.N H III H III III ucoocoucHuomsm mcHumu Houoa £032 oEOm oHuuHH ocoz mucoocommom uOHuumHo QUMHUNVIQ HOOQOW wocoswohm .UoOGHHGOUII.mN.N mHmfia 111 mHH m w m HH OH O OO III IIunu ON N N H m m N HH III Hmuuw m H III H H m III m muocumou ouscoe O H III III N III III m muonomou unocoHuOOOHN m OH III N III H H N v mHmaHocHum m III III III H H III H ucoocoucHuomnm ON N N H m III N vH III Hmuuu m H III III N III III m muocumou ouscob m H III III H III III m muocomou NumcoHumnon m HH III N H m III N 0 39:0ch O III III III III H III m III HMUOH m III III III III H III N muocumou oudcoh H III III III III III III H muozomou buocoHumnoum a H III III III III III III H mHnuHocHud H III III III III III III H ucomcoucHuomsm ON H III N H o H m III Hmuoe m H III III H m III III muozomou ouscoe OH III III N III H H w muocomou NumcoHuwooum U H III III III III H III N 333ch N III III III III H III H ucoocoucHuomsm ON N III H III 0 III HH III HouOH O III III III III N III v muocuoou ouocoe m N III III III N III v muozomou huocoHumnon m m III III H III N III N mHanocHum H III III III III III III H unoccoucHHowom mH N III III III H N OH III Hmuoh v III III III III H H N muonumou oudcoh O N III III III III III v muonomou NumcoHumnOHm a m III III III III III H v mHmmHocHum III III III III III III III III ucoocoucHuomsm HOuOB ocoz mucnuHomcoo coEuHccO muocooou Hocomou mEooummmHU HOOHOCHHO muconcommom uOHHumHo \mOOmH>Homsm ucoEuHmOoO uoLuO ocHoHo: Hocuo cuH3 woocouomcoo Hoocum uHmH> can EOHH wuHmH> Nocozvoum .moHocoHOHuoU o>chH Ou muocomou muocoHumnOum co>Hm oocoumHmmo mo mocHx ocu tcHnHquoo muocomou ouscou can .muocomou unocoHumncuO .mHmmHocHum .mucoocoucHuocsm an momcommomII.NN.N mqmdh 112 HN w «H m III HmuOB m H N III mnocomou ondcoa mH N OH m muonomou aumcoHponoum U N III N III mHomHoaHHm H H III III uaoocoucHHomsm «N O OH o III Hopos m H m m mnonooou ouscoa m H m N whosomou humcoHumnoum m m N N H mHmmHocHHm H III H III pcoocoucHuomsm MN O NH m III Hooch m H m N muonooou ousaoa m m m m muoaooou HHoGOHuonOHm d m N m III mHomHocHHm H III H III ucoocochuomsm Hmuoa onuoE oHoHoE oHoHoE munoocommom UOHHumHo Uo>OHmEH UoHoommo ooHoBOH Hoonom uoz woconwouh 11“ .muonooou mnocoHumnOHm mo oHoHOE osu co GOHHOOHo>o Hosooou mo Emumoum oau mo uoommo onp OOHouomoH muonooou oudcou cam .muonooou humcoHumnonm .mHmmHocHum .mucoocoHcHHomsm an momcommomII.mN.N mHmda 113 NNH ON 55 OH III Hmuoa mH m HH m III Houos N N v H muocomou ouscoe O H v H muonooou NHOGOHHMQOHm m m N N H mHmmHOcHHm HI III H III ucoocochnomsm MN m OH H III Houoa N N m III muonomou ouscoa h H m H muosooou muocOHumnoum m m N 5 III mHmmHocHum NH m O III III Hmuoa N N m III muocomou ouscoa N III N III muonooou anacoHumnonm O N H H III mHomHOGHHm H III H III vcoocoucHuomsm Houoe oHouoE oHoHOE oHouoE mucoocommom HOHHHmHo oo>oumEH oouoommm ooHo3OH Hoozom uoz hocoswoum .fioDCHHCOUIIImNIN MHm¢ Hoocom mucosvoum .ouscou mom mnocomou mcHuosHo>o How Eoumoum ucomoum ocu nuHB ucoEoono OH mo3 :OHumosco mo pHoOQ onu OOsz Ou ucouxo onu mcHUHmmoH muonomou ouscop can .mnonomop NHMOOHHMQOHQ .mHmmHocHHm .mucoocoucHquOm ho momcommomII.Om.N mqmaa .coHumoow onu Ho3mco no: UHU < uOHHumHO Hoozom mo ucoocouaHHomsm oneo 117 II mu we OH m m III Hmuoa om.N v N N III III muonoooo ouscoa NO.N m N H III III muonooou I muocOHquOHm m om.N v m III H III mHomHOGHHm OO.N H III H III III usoccouaHnomsm om.N N H H .III III muonooou ousaoB mN.H v H H III N whosooou NHOOOHumnoum m OO.N m w H III III mHomHOGHHm OO.N m m III III III muonooou oudcoa OO.m N N III III III mnonooou >HMGOHquOHm O OO.N N N III III III mHoQHUGHHm OO.N H H III III III ucoocoucHnomsm mcHuoH Hobos . nos: oEom oHuuHH ocoz mucoocommom HOHHpmHo ommuo>¢ Hoonom hoconwoum .UoDGHucOUII.om.N mqmdfi 118 mm OH O O O O m m mH MN NH Hauoh OH H III III H III m III III O m m NH III III H m H H III 0 N III N m III III H III H II H H III H O «N v m H H H II III H m m u NN v III m m N m m H N H m «H H H III III H II H m m N 4 Hmuce :oHu pHoc muozomou muOumOHm>o wHOme o>OHdEH muozomou muonuo mcoHum> ucoE uOHuumHo ImOHOOO choHu Hozuo ozu :che IHoOSm ob mHoz HHo uo Iuomno IsuumcH Hoorom usoum Ikum an :oHu own oHOE Ho coHu oouuHE ouoz o>Huoon whosoeou Hmu ImsHmpm muocoaou Imon>m IEOO m Ibo cm soc mo IHOcHOc o>Ho mo coHu moHo>oo ccHumu ocu opHo ImoHo>m IOOHHO noubom Hocosqoum .Obncou HOW muocunou scHumsHm>o HON mEdHOOum uHozu nchHmCOH mHonOOOO ouocou vac .muocomou HumcoHOOOOHu .chmHucHum .mEoumHm Hoocom uHonu cH mucoEo>0HQEH OOH mcoHumUcoufiooou .mucopcoucHHoosm an momcoamomII.Nm.N mHmdh Hm H v m N m mH m m m w NN o HoHOB NH H H v N H H v III II H N III m mH III H III III III H H III N III N III m O III H III III III H N III H III H III O NH H II H H H m H III H H v H 0 OH H II H N III v III N H N m H m HN III H N N H m III H m III v v < kuoe ccHuco ccHua> :cHumm coHu muozuoou OOH» moumo EOHOOHO Ho: masoum oEHu ucoEdHum uoHuu IHCDELOO Iuomno IHOHuHmO ImsHm>o cHoc OH ImsHm>o Icmum ooccmHm IOOmHom nozumou mo IcH oc ImHo Ho xowq resecw Hozomou O>Huoom monsooo opHu mo quH 02 cocHouu up xomH Ho uoom Hoonom ucz oo xomH IwocH Iouy oz Ioofloo uo xomq oucouou MO xUmnH [HmUCH Locosvouh u m bopwE umsk UCHOOOOOH muocooou ouscou was .muocuaou wumcoHumOon .memHucHuu .ouscou HON muocumou wcHuoaHo>o HOH Emuuouc o>H 00m 9 :o uoo OCHLHHOU CH UOHOucoooco Um: mEoumHm HOOSUm uHocu moHooumno no mEoHnOum .mucoccoucHuoasm up momcommomII.Hm.N uqmdb 119 NN H OH O III Houoa O III m III muonooob ousaoa OH H O O Imuonooou muocoHquOHm U N III H H mHomHocHHm H III III H unopcoucHuomsm ON O O HH III HOHOB OH H O m muosomou oHOOoB O N m w muonomou OnmcoHumnoum m m III N H mHmmHocHHm H III III H ucoccoucHuomsm OH H OH O III Hmuoa O III m m muosooou ouscoa O H v m muonomou OHOOOHHOQOHO 4 v III N N mHomHocHHm H III H III ucowcoucHuomsm Honoe oz momcono oEOO mow mucowcommom “OHHumHO nuHs .mow Hoonom mocosvoum .OoOcHucoo on UHsonm ousaou How muonomov OcHuosHm>o How Eoumoum m.Eoummm Hoocom HHoap HOG no Honposs manHoocoo muonooou ouscou cam .muozomou OHOGOHUOQOHQ .mHomHocHnm .mucoUGoHGHHomsm On mowcommomII.mm.N MHmNB 120 HNH OO Hmuoa OH mH I—Ixo muonooou ouscoa muozomou mnmcoHumnoum mHomHocHHm pcoccoucHnomsm Hmuoe mm muonooou onocoa muonomou OnmcoHumnOHm mHomHOGHHm Hmuoe muozooou onscoa muonomou OuocoHumnoum mHomHoGHHm ucocaoHCHHomsm Hmuoa momcono oEOm nqu .mmm mow mucosvoum mucoocommom uoHuumHO Hoonom .UoscHucOUII.mm.N mqmfia APPENDIX C TABLES 3.1 THROUGH 3.15 APPENDIX C TABLES 3.1 THROUGH 3.15. The interpretation of the data placed in Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 was based on two criteria. First, it was found that a specific purpose, standard, or source of data was or was not included in the programs for evaluat- ing teachers in any one or all of the six school districts if 66.7 per cent or more of the principals, 66.7 per cent or more of the probationary teachers, and 66.7 per cent or more of the tenure teachers agreed with the answer marked by the superintendent. In the case of District E, it was found that a Specific purpose, standard, or source of data was or was not included if 66.7 per cent or more of the probationary teachers and 66.7 per cent or more of the tenure teachers agreed with the answer marked by a majority of the principals. When there was not clear agreement between the respondents, an omission mark (--—) was placed in the pertinent table. To cite an example, the superintendent of District A indicated that "to give the professional teacher recog- nition that is deserved" was a purpose that was included in his system's evaluation program. One hundred per cent of the principals from his system, 80.0 per cent of the 121 122 tenure teachers agreed with him. Therefore, it was surmised that the purpose was included in the evaluation program of the district. A second criterion to be used in the interpreta- tion of the data was based on the actual or potential value of a specific purpose, standard, or source of data. The respondents were asked to check the actual or potential value of a particular purpose, standard, or source of data to a program for evaluating teachers for tenure. The actual or potential value of a purpose, standard, or source of data was high enough or great enough to be included if all four groups of respondents from a school district (Eh£e§_groups in District E) gave the item an "average numerical value" of 2.00 (of some value) to 3.00 (of much value). It was decided that the actual or potential value of a specific purpose, standard, or source of data was high enough or great enough that the item could be included in the programs of any or all school districts if the four groups of respondents (three groups in Dis- trict E) in a majority of the six school districts under study, four out of the six districts, gave the item an "average numerical value" of 2.00 (of some value) or higher. The term "any or all school districts" was referred to as a "model" school district. The "average numerical value" was the average rating computed for a specific purpose, standard or source 123 of data based on this code: "O-no value, l-little value, 2-some value, and 3-much value." The "average numerical value" was computed by: (1) multiplying the number of responses in each category by the code numbers; (2) add- ing and totaling the products; and (3) dividing the total of the products by the total number of responses. To cite an example of how to compute an "average numerical value," nine tenure teachers of School District E contributed these responses to present their Opinions of the actual or potential value of the purpose "To give the professional teacher recognition that is deserved" to a teacher evaluation program: O-No value l-Little value 4-Some value 4-Much value The first and second steps to compute an "average numerical value" were to multiply the number of responses by the code numbers and add and total the products: 0 1 4 4 142 as. as; x_3. 0 1 8 12 0 1 8 2.3 21 The third step was to divide the total of the PrOCiucts by the total number of responses. 124 x 02 02 oz mow mo» mo» 02 oz oz 02 oz oz mEoumoum ucoE ImOHo>o© oOH>HomIcH 0cm OHOmH> Iuomom MOO mHmmn on» ooH>oum OB x 02 oz 02 oz 02 02 III III III III oz 02 Emumoum HocoHuosuumcH onu HO mmoco>Huoomwo onu ocHEHouoO OB x oz oz oz oz oz oz oz III III III oz 02 monsooooum oco moHOHHOQ HoOOOOHoQ HO mmoco>Huoommo on» oOHEHouoU OB x 02 02 oz 02 oz mo» 02 mo» III 02 mo» oz HHommHEmHO Uco .ucoECOHmmmou .coHuOEOum mm cosmv coHuom o>HumuuchHEOm Ocmeu OH stom: on OHOO3 LOsz coHuoEHowcH onsoom OB x mo» wow wow oz 02 mo» oz 02 mo» oz oz mo» coHuosHumcH o>OHmEH OB x wow wow oz wow 02 wow mo» 02 02 02 oz 02 QHon Uooc 0:3 muocooou Op oocoumHmmo o>Hm OB x wow wow wow wow wow wow oz wow wow mow mow oz mommocxmo3 6cm onumcouum HHocu mo ouo3m oEooon Eon» OchHoc On muonomou Ho ucoemoHo>ov Hmconmououm ocu oHOEOHa OB x oz wow wow mo» oz mo» oz wow wow mo» mo» oz oocmEHOm Iuom OcHnooou HO OuHHmsq Ono msumum onu mmommo OB x oz oz mo» mo» oz mo> oz oz mo» 02 oz mo» Oo>uomo© OH umzu coHuHcOOoou uonooou Hoconmomoum onu o>HO OB oz mo» m m 0 U m < m m a U m < uoHHumHO Hoocom =Ho muoHuumHo quHHumHO Hoocom Ho mEmHOOHQ mowomusm I608: o no Emumoum Hoonom wo mEmuOoum coHum: coHumsHo>o onu OH OooOHocH coHuosHm>o on» OH IHm>o ocu :H OopsHocH .on on oopsHocH on pHsonm oscHucoo UHOOLm .on pHoocm H .ouscou How muocooou mcHumOHo>o Hem mEmHmOHQ mo momomusmII.H.m mHm EHOOqu ou HMOOH>HOOH on» no HMHucouom ocu cHouuoOmm OH x oz oz oz 02 02 oz 02 02 III oz oz oz mommoooum coHuooHom ocm unoEuHsuooH wcu Ho OOHOHHHm> man umou 09 x 02 oz 02 mo» 02 mo» oz oz oz mo» oz oz mucoEucHommm EuouImcoH HOW muonomou Onuuos omooco 09 x mo» 02 02 mo» mo» mo» 02 02 02 oz wow 02 mmooozm OOH>oHsoo OH Honomou onu umHmmm 09 x oz oz oz oz oz 02 oz 02 III oz III III chHuocmm no mpum3ou HOW mHmmn on» o©H>oum OH x 02 02 wow wow oz mo» 02 mo» 02 oz oz mo» oocmEHOO Iuom mo Ho>oH ann o new o>HHum Ou muosomou oum>Hu0E 09 x 02 oz oz 02 02 mo» II 02 oz oz III 02 OuHHHnHmcommou HOO OOHucsoooo oumuHHHomw 09 02 mo» m m Q U m 4 m m D U m < uUHuume Hoonom =Ho muoHuumHo muoHHumHQ Hoonom mo mEMHOOHm momomusm Inca: O HO EmHOOHO Hoocom Ho mEoHOOHO coHums coHumsHm>o ocu OH oopsHocH coHumsHm>o ocu OH OmOsHocH on anonm IHm>o ocu OH popsHucH oscHucoo oHsocm .on OH .on anonm .cmDGHHCOUIIIH.m MHm¢B 1326 OZ mo» OZ mow mo> mo» mo» mo» mo> mo» wow wow Hmuuomou ocm mpuouou cuHB oumusooo Ono umEoum mcHon .EooummoHo onu Ho mcoHuHocoo HmonOna on» Ou mcHocouum .ocHHmHomHo oHnmumooomv ucoEoOOCOE EooummmHo o>Huoome mo» wow wow mo> OZ 02 02 mo» mo» mo» wow 02 Omouusou Ocm .mmocHHcooHO .cuHmon mo manon Hmcomuom .OuH>Humouo .OcchHnu HmoHuHHO mo wHHQOm :H mouanuuum HOOOOHom £05m mo ucoEQOHo>oo 02 wow wow wow mo» 02 OZ mo> wow mm? mo> OZ mHmHHouoE HosmH> IOHOOO oco HocoHuusuumcH mo omD mo» mo» mo> OZ mow mo> mo» wo> 02 OZ mHHmom CH moocoHoOHHp HOOUH>HUCH HOw OOHUH>OHO 02 OZ 02 mo» wow mo» 02 mo» mo> wow 02 OZ mHHQOQ OH manoc Opsum UOOO OCHQoHo>oo paw mucoEcOHmmo mcmeE CH HHme 02 OZ 02 02 02 mm? 02 02 OZ OZ 02 OZ ucoE Io>oHcoo can OHHUOQOO HHQOQ mo ucofiousmoofi 6cm .mumou mo coHumuoHQHoucH pom om: mo» mo» 02 mo» mo» mo> 02 wow mo» mo» mo» 02 mcon comon OHHOU mo coHumHomon 0cm xHOS mo coHuoNHcomHO 02 OZ mow OZ mo> mo» 02 mo» mo» 02 02 OZ EooummmHO ocu CH ucmsou HouumE Doohnsm mo coHuooHom 02 mo» mo» mo» mow mo> 02 mo» mo> mo» mo> mow HouuoE uooflnsm HO omonzocx oumovond 02 mo» 0 U h m D U m 4 uoHHumHo Hoocum :Ho IOOE: O HO EOHOOHO cOHuosHm>o onu :H OoOOHocH on UHsonm Hoonom IHm>o on» CH ooUSHocH oscHucoo UHsosm muOHHumHo we meoumoum coHuos .on OH .on UHsonm muoHHumHo Hoocom mo mEOHOOHQ :oHuosHo>o on» OH popsHocH OOHOOcmum .ooumOHo>o mH muocooou HHOCOHDOQOHQ wo xHo3 on» LOH£3 On mUHopcoumII.N.m mqmme 1277 W0? mo» mo» m0? m0> mm% 02 mo» mo» mo» wow wow moquccoou 0cm moonuoe Ochooou oumHHQOHQmo mo om: o>Huoommm 02 OZ 02 www mm? 02 oz III mo» III III oz H.0uo .mcoHumNHcmOHo Hmconmowoum CH 6cm Emumoum oOH>HomIcH on» OH coHumOHo IHuumm .Oosum voocm>oo .Ho>ouu HmcoHumosvoO nu3oum Hoconmomoum mwfl mo» mm? mQM mo» mo> wow wow wow oz mo» oz H.0uo .o>HUHmom .HMOOH .HOOHnuoO movduHuuo Hmconmowoum OZ 02 02 mo» 02 02 02 mm? 02 Ill 02 OZ US$50>mH£UM HO £u3OuO HHQOQ oHanHmoc mo ucouxm m0? mow mo» wow wow mm> mow mo» mo» mo> mo» mow H.0uo .oocmnmommm o>HuowHuuo ~:uHmoc OOOO .stuomu .oOHo> ucowmoHOO OOHumHuouooumco Homemuom oHnouHmoO 02 OZ 02 02 02 mo» oz oz mo» III oz 02 H.0uo .mHHowum ODHOOEEOO cH coHuomHoHuHmm .moHuH>Huom HOHOOHHHOO Imuuxo How moHuHHHOHmcommou use OOHOHHOU 6cm OCHEOmmmO coHummHOHuumm mmoHooHuxm OZ OZ OZ mo» 02 mo» 02 02 wow mo» wow wow oouuHEEoo OuHsomw woo .ucoE IQOHo>oo EOHOOHHHOO .mOGHuooE OuHsoom CH coHuomHoHuHmm mo» mo» m0> mo» wow wow 02 mo» mo» mo» mo» 02 mHHmsm mo mcHon IHHo3 Hmucoe Ugo .HmcoHuOEo .HOHOOO .HwOHmOnm on» How pummom 02 mo» 0 U m m D U m < uOHuumHO Hoozom =Ho IUOE= o no EOHOOHQ coHumsHm>o ocu CH popOHocH on UHsonm muoHHumHa Hoonom mo mEMHOOHm coHum: IHm>o on» OH oocsHocH oocHucoo UHsocm .on OH .on OHsocm muoHHumHO Hoocom mo mEOHOouQ moumpcoum coHumOHm>o on» OH popsHocH .pochucoulI.N.m mHmop Ocm nuzoum UHHzo wo oOUonocx oumzqoo< x mo> wow wow mo» mo» mo» mo» mo» wow wow oz mo» Hmucoumm ocm .mHHmdm .COHuouuchHEOO .muoom QUH3 mmszcOHu ImHou OOOOO mmHnmcoHuoHoH HOOOmHomuoucH OuouomumHumm x mo» wow wow wow mo» mow oz mo» wow wow oz oz ODHOOEEOO ocu UGO .uHOOo on» .OHHEO ocu «0 mOooc on» monoumuopc: Ono moNHcmooom 128 02 mm» b m D U m < m m D U m fl uoHHumHv Hoocom =Ho muOHHumHo muoHHumHo Hoosom mo mEmHOOHQ moumncoum Ioofi= o No EOHOOHO Hoozom O0 mEmHOOHQ :oHum: :oHumsHm>o on» CH poOOHocH coHumsHm>o on» CH IHo>o ozu OH noUDHOcH .on on ooOOHocH on UHoocm ochucoo OHSOLO .on OHsonm .UoDCHuCOUII.N.m mHmdfi 129 .EouH ocu Ou omconmou :02: H0 :mo»: HooHU o oumochH uo: OHU mucoocommou ocu :OHL3 :H mommu Ocm muop O0 :onmHEO on» Luon UoHOHccHw oHnmu mHLu uOOLOOOucu HIIIO con conmHEO ocbu x 02 02 mo» 02 oz oz mo» III mo» III 02 Oz OchHouu HmcoHquom mo mcuooou .muozomob x 02 oz 02 Oz 02 02 III oz mo» III 02 III moHuH>Huom ODHCOEEOO CH coHquHuHuumm .muocomoe x 02 oz 02 oz 02 02 oz 02 III oz 02 III mcoHumcHmeo 0cm wouHmc IcoHumosq Ou mowcommou .wuonomoe x 02 oz 02 02 oz 02 Oz III 02 III 02 oz muHsmou umou HHOOO x 02 02 Oz 02 02 oz III 02 02 III 02 III momcmco HHQOO co pommn :oHumsHm>m x 02 mo» war mo» mo> mo» mo» mo» mo» mo» wow wow coHum>Homno fiooummeU x 02 Oz 02 oz 02 02 III mor mo» 02 mo> oz coHunEHoOcH Ouooou HoCCOmHoQ o>HumH5EOO m.uo£umo9 x 02 oz 02 02 Oz 02 oz 02 02 02 oz 02 mucouma .mHHODQ On coHuosHo>m x 02 oz 02 02 Oz 02 oz 02 02 oz 02 oz muoNHuHo HO coHuosHm>m x 02 02 mo» oz 02 oz 02 02 oz 02 02 III muuoaxo Hmcon Imououm oonuso On coHucOHm>m x 02 oz 02 oz 02 02 02 02 III 02 III 02 moouuHEEOo HmHOomm HO coHumsHm>w x 02 oz 02 02 02 02 III 02 02 02 oz 02 muocomou Hocuo On coHumus>m x 02 mo» mOO mo» 02 02 III oz 02 III III 02 muOmH>uom3w On wuonowou mo coHumsHm>m x 02 02 mo» mo> mOO mc> mo» 02 wow mo» mo» mo» mucumuuchHEoo Hoocum On wuozomou OO :OHumsHm>m x 02 oz 02 02 Oz 02 oz 02 oz 02 02 III mHHQOO On muocuoou mo coHuosHo>m x wc> mo> oz mo> 02 02 Oz 02 III III III 02 coHuosHo>quHom uocoooe oz mo> m m Q U m 4 h m D U m < uOHuume HOOLOm =Ho muoHuumHo I U05 : :oHHOOHO>o ocu :H OwosHucH on OHsocm O OO ECHOOEO Hoonom Ho OEOHOOHQ coHuo: IHo>o OLD OH coosHocH oscHucou UHsonm .on Ca .on OHsonm muOHuumHO Hoonom O0 mEmuOOHO coHuosHm>o on» :H popsHocH MUMQ MO meIHDOW mbozoo0u OHOCOHOOOOHQ O0 xHo3 onu Doono mucoEOOOO OcHxOE H0O muop O0 moousomII.m.m mqmde 130 TABLE 3.4.--Responses by principals regarding approximately how many times they had observed in each proba- tionary teacher's classroom so far this school year. School districts Total number of ob- A B C D E F Total servations of proba- a tionary teachers of (5) (4) (2) (2) (9) (6) (28) At least five minutes, but less than ten minutes 20 10 10 18 31 45 134 Ten minutes or more, but less than forty minutes 19 8 14 12 23 18 94 Forty minutes or more 4 2 1 8 13 7 35 Total 43 20 25 38 67 70 263 aThe numbers placed in parentheses after the identification letter of each school district signified the number of principals that responded to the question. For example, in School District A, five principals observed each probationary teacher four times for "at least five minutes, but less than ten minutes." 131 TABLE 3.5.--Responses by probationary teachers regarding approximately how many times their classroom teaching had been observed by the principal of their school so far this school year. School districts Total number of ob- A B C D E F Total servations of proba- a tionary teachers of (11) (10) (13) (3) (9) (6) (52) At least five minutes, but less than ten minutes 1 17 10 6 ll 5 50 Ten minutes or more, but less than forty minutes 1 15 l 3 7 6 33 Forty minutes or more 1 2 —-- l 6 --- 10 Total 3 34 ll 10 24 ll 93 aThe numbers placed in parentheses after the identi- fication letter of each school district signified the number of probationary teachers that responded to the question. For example, in School District A, eleven probationary teachers had responded that one observation had been made of their classroom teaching for "at least five minutes, but less than ten minutes." This meant that only one of the probationary teachers had been visited for this length of time, and this had occurred only once. 132 TABLE 3.6.--Responses by principals and probationary teachers concerning whether or not a conference was held with the teacher by the evaluator following each classroom observation. Conference held School District Respondents Yes No Total Principals 1 3 4 A Probationary teachers 3 3 5 Total 4 6 10 B Principals 3 l 4 Probationary teachers 3 7 10 Total 6 8 14 C Principals --- 2 2 Probationary teachers 2 8 10 Total 2 10 12 D Principals ---~ 2 2 Probationary teachers ---_ 3 3 Total --- 5 5 E Principals 5 4 9 Probationary teachers 2 7 9 Total 7 ll 18 F Principals 3 3 6 Probationary teachers 4 2 6 Total 7 5 12 Total --- 26 45 71 133 TABLE 3.7.--Responses by principals and probationary teachers concerning approximately how many conferences had been held with each probationary teacher follow- ing classroom observations if a conference had not been held following each observation. Number of conferences held School district Respondents 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Total Principals . l -—— l -—- 1 ------ 3 A Probationary teachers 5 --- ——— --_ --_ ___ _-_ 5 Total 6 --- l --- 1 ------ 3 Principals ------ 1 1 _________ 2 B Probationary teachers 3 --- —-— ——— _-- -_- ___ 3 Total 3 --- 1 l --------- 5 Principals ------ 1 --- 1 ...... 2 C Probationary teachers 4 1 2 --_ _-_ ___ -__ 7 Total 4 l 3 --- l —H— —__ 9 Principals ------ 1 -—- 1 ______ 2 D Probationary teachers 1 --- ——- _-_ ___ __- -_- 1 Total 1 --- l --- 1 ------ 3 Principals --- 1 1 ——— 1 1 1 5 E Probationary teachers 3 1 3 __- --_ -_- -__ 7 Total 3 2 4 --- l l l 12 Principals ------ 1 ————————— 1 2 F Probationary teachers 1 1 —-— --- --- -_- --- 2 Total 1 l l --------- 1 4 Total --- 18 4 11 l 4 1 2 41 134 TABLE 3.8.--Responses by principals and probationary teachers concerning the number of evaluations of probationary teachers' work in which an instrument was used. Number of evaluations in which an instru— School ment was used district Respondents O l 2 3 Total Principals 3 l 1 --- 5 A Probationary teachers 7 --------- 7 Total 10 l l --— 12 Principals —-- l 2 --- 3 B Probationary teachers 3 l 4 --- 8 Total 3 2 6 —-- ll Principals ------ 2 --- 2 C Probationary teachers 6 l 5 --- 12 Total 6 l 7 --- l4 Principals ------ 2 --- 2 D. Probationary teachers --- 1 -6- --- 1 Total --- l 2 --- 3 Principals --— 2 6 --— 8 E Probationary teachers 3 5 l --- 9 Total 3 7 7 --- l7 Principals 2 2 l l 6 F Probationary teachers 4 l l --- 6 Total 6 3 2 l 12 Total --- 28 15 25 1 69 1355 OO HH m ON OH me III HmuOO OH O III m N O Hmuoe O N III m H m muonomou OuocoHumnOum O O H III N H m mHmaHocHum ON H H m O OH Houoe OH H H v H O muozomou humcoHumnoum m HH III III H m m mHmmHocHum m III III III III m Hmuoa H III III III III H muonooou HumcoHuoOOHm Q N III III III III N mHmmHocHum OH III III H N «H Hmuos I OH III III III N NH muonomou OuocoHumnoum U m III III H III N 33855 HN N O O O m Hmuoe OH N O O m m muozooou OuocoHumnOHm m m III III N H N 23353 OH O H O H III Hmuoa O O H v III III muocomou OuocoHuonoum O m H III m H III mHomHocHum Hmuoe mcoHumsHm>o mxmm Hozomou mcoHumsHm>o munomou coHum muuoaou coHum mucoocommom uOHHumHO HHonu mo ocu OH HHco HHonu IOHm>o ocu mo IsHm>o onu mo Hoonom ooEHOOOH Boz mcoHumsHm>o HHocu HO OHHOHO OQOO m c3ocm HOOD o co>Ho mo ooEHOOcH ooEHOOOH mcoHumsHm>o HHocu mo muonomou OHOOOHHOQOHQ OOHEHOOOH mo mcmoz .chHuosHo>o uHocu mo muonooou OnocoHuon Iona ooEuOucH mEoumxm Hoonom HHonu 30c ochHoocoo muonomou OumcoHuonoum ocm mHoaHocHum On momcoamomII.O.m NHm4 Hoonom mucosvoum .HHO3 “Hosp mo oomE ouoz £0H£3 mcoHumOHm>o onu nqu ucoEooHOo OH onoz muonooou OnocoHquOHm noHn3 Ou pcouxo onu Ochuoocoo muonooou HHOOOHHOQOHQ ocm mHmmHocHum an momcommomII.HH.m MHmdB 138 TABLE 3.12.—-Responses by principals and probationary teachers concerning whether there were provi- sions in the program of evaluation for pro— bationary teachers to submit additional information if they believed that the evalu- ation had been undeservedly low. Frequency of responses School Don't district Respondents Yes No know Total Principals 2 1 --- 3 A Probationary teachers --— 2 4 6 Total 2 3 4 9 Principals 2 1 ——_ 3 B Probationary teachers --- 5 5 10 Total 2 6 5 13 Principals 2 --— —-- 2 C Probationary teachers 11 l --- 12 Total 13 l --- l4 Principals l l --- 2 D Probationary teachers 1 --- -l 2 Total 2 l 1 4 Principals 6 2 --- 8 E Probationary teachers 1 3 5 9 Total 7 5 5 l7 Principals 4 l --- 5 F Probationary teachers 2 2 2 6 Total 6 3 2 11 Total --- 32 l9 17 68 139 HN.H HO O ON OH ON III Houoa OO.H O H H H m muonoooa OHOOOHumnoum m ON.N m H O III III mHomHocHHm OO.H O III O III O muonooou muocoHquoum m OO.H m H H O m mHmmHocHum OO.H N H III III H muonomou OHOOOHHOQOHH o OO.H N III III N III mHmmHOcHHm OO.H NH H O N m muosooou muocoHuonOHm U OO.N N H H III III mHomHOGHHm OO. OH III N O O muonooou humcoHumnonm m OO.H O III m H III mHmmHocHHm OO.H O H m H N muonooou OHocOHumnoum 4 OO.H O III N III N mHomHOCHHm OGHHOH HOHOB £092 oEOm oHuuHH ocoz musoosommom uOHHumHU oOmHo>< Hoonom Hocoovoum .xnos HHoau Ho GOHumsHo>o onu OH Homoms moB HOH£3 COHHOEHOHOH wouuHEnsm OHHHOHODHO> muosomou OHOOOHHOQOHQ HOH£3 OH ucovxo onu OCHcHoOCOO muozomoa OHOOOHHMQOHQ ocm mHmmHocHum an momcommomII.mH.m mHmNB 140 HO ON OH HO OH III Hmuoa 3 N H m m H38. , O H H m m muonomou w OumcoHumnoum m m HH H N O N mHomHocHum i ON O O O O Hmuoa NH O H N O muonomou .HHOOOHumnoum m NH III m m N mHmmHUCHum O H N N H Hmuoa HOCHHO N H III III H muonomou xuocoHumnoum O O III N N III mHmmHocHHm OH O O O m Hmuos OH N m N n muocomou OuocoHumnoum U m H III N III mHomHUCHum OH O O O H Houoa OH O H O H muonomou OHOGOHHMOOHA m O III N N III mHmmHuaHHm OH O N m N Hmuos O O III III N wuonomou _ aumcoHumnoum ¢ _ O H N m III mHmmHonHHm , Hmuoa zu3ouO Ochumou uHonu mo uH OcHumsHm>o :H mucoESHumcH uOHuumHL HHQOQ ommnm oEow OcHnummoH umHmmo 0» can mcHnooou mcHumsHm>quHom Hoonow ouammoe muowH>uomzm uO\O:m HHonu mo mommzm oEOm Ho OcHumquHom no _ ou nuwou muoumuuchHaom nuH3 o>uomno ou mHOmH>uomsm own on» :ODOHAH A we own onu moucououcoo coHumsHm>o u0\ocm muoumuuchHfiom nmsouza “Ow mumoawou nmsoune Ou mumosr nvsoune I I no .ocozwoum t OuunoHuMHOum :oHss .xuo: :30 “Hosu .Ocauos m>o :H mucuumHmwm uHOOOm no .Uoumsz>o uuonumou . H :H .Onm uH .mamz on» Ochuoocoo muonumou OumcoHuonoum Ono mHmmHonHum an momnommomII.OH.m quummsm u0\ocm muou ImuuchHEom nuH3 mmocmumucoo Hugo IH>HucH nonousa xuo3 unnu mo coHumsHm>m Imem cwuuHHS Mom mHOmH> Iummam u0\ocm muoumuuchHEum un mummswmu cmsouna I. IIIIIIIIIIIIILI. 11 17 18 10 67 raiII ll IIzIL 33 mucmesuumcH ocwumuIMme no mcHumsHm>w Imem mm: on mcoH Iumwmmsm nmsoune mucmwcommmm PrinCipals Probationary teachers uofluumHo Hoonom i A I I; Total‘ Principals Probationary Total; teachers Principals . Probationary teachers Total Principals Probationary teachers B C D Total‘ I ' Principals Probationary teachers Total Principals Probationary teachers Totall 13 E F Total APPENDIX D THE LETTER AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE FIFTY-NINE SCHOOL DISTRICTS APPENDIX D THE LETTER AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE FIFTY-NINE SCHOOL DISTRICTS January 24, 1966 , Superintendent Dear : In a research project sponsored by the Department of Administration and Higher Education, we are studying the programs used by the public school districts of Michigan to determine whether or not teachers will be recommended for continuing tenure. To obtain a description of how Michigan public school districts are performing this function, we are sending an inquiry to the superintendents of a select sample of these school districts. We would appreciate your participation in this study. Evaluating teachers for tenure is one of the many purposes of a teacher evaluation program. Since a 1964 amendment applied the Teacher Tenure Act to all school districts of Michigan, evaluating teachers for tenure has become parti- cularly important. No school district will be named or otherwise identified in any report of the findings. A code number has been assigned to your questionnaire only to inform the research staff what inquiries have been returned. Later, we shall call upon a few selected school districts for some additional information. Thank you for your participation in this research project. Sincerely yours, Bennett H. Litherland Research Assistant Archibald B. Shaw, Chairman . -Department of Administration and Higher Education 142 143 TESTS SHOW THAT IT WILL TAKE YOU JUST 15 MINUTES TO COMPLETE THIS INQUIRY Code AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF TEACHERS FOR TENURE (For the purposes of this inquiry, "The evaluation of teachers for tenure" refers to the process whereby informa- tion is obtained so that judgment can be made whether or not to recommend a "probationary teacher" for continuing tenure. A "probationary teacher" may be considered as any teacher who does NOT have continuing tenure.) 1. How many teachers (teaching half-time or more) are on the staff of the school district? How many teachers (teaching half-time or more) have continuing tenure? Does the board of education have a written ado ted policy regarding the evaluation of teacHers? YES NO If the answer to Number 3 is "Yes," please attach a copy of the policy or state briefly its main provi- sions. ' Does the board of education have a written adOpted policy regarding the granting of continuing tenure? YES NO If the answer to Number 5 is "Yes," please attach a c0py of the policy or state briefly its main provi- sions. 144 Code Does the school system have a formal, organized program which is used to evaluate teachers for tenure? (A formal, organized program has one or more of the following characteristics: (1) WEIEtEH aHOpted board of education policies pertaining to the evaluation of teachers; (2) a clear delineation of responsibility for carrying out the evaluation process; (3) a systematized means for collecting, recording, and re- viewing the evidence regarding the work of probationary teachers; (4) provisions for self-evaluation by teachers; and (5) clearly defined criteria, standards, or factors upon which the teachers are evaluated.) YES ___ NO If the answer to Number 7 is "Yes," please respond to a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h below. In case you have attached board of education policies in response to Numbers 3 and 5, ignore those questions which follow that duplicate information found in said policies. T: the answer to Number Z_i§ "N2," please skip to Number 2. a. What member of the staff (principal, supervisor, etc.) has the primary responsibility for evaluat- ing teachers for tenure? b. Who else, if anyone, assists in evaluating teachers for tenure? c. What provisions are there for self-evaluation by teachers in the program for evaluating teachers for tenure? d. What means (such as rating scales, check lists, tests, student appraisals, reports, etc.) are used to collect evidence regarding the work of teachers, especially probationary teachers? e. What sources of data (such as classroom observa- tions, personnel records, etc.) are used in making judgments concerning probationary teachers? 10. 11. 12. 145 Code f. How long has a formal program for evaluating teachers for tenure been in effect in the school system? 9. Did the school district have tenure for teachers before the 1964 amendment to the Teacher Tenure Act made teacher tenure apply to all school districts of the State of Michigan? YES ___ NO ___ h. If the answer to "g" is "Yes," how long had tenure been in effect in the school district before the 1964 amendment became law? If the answer to Number 7 is "No," please describe briefly the informal procedures employed by the school system to decide whether or not to grant continuing tenure to a teacher. What are the specific criteria (standards, factors) on which the school district bases a decision whether or not to grant a teacher continuing tenure? Is the evaluation (appraisal) of teachers a major concern in your school system? YES NO If the answer to Number 11 is "Yes," please give the reason why teacher evaluation is a major concern. 146 Code 13. Has your school system studied, or does it plan to study in the near future, the process of teacher evaluation? YES NO If "Yes," when? 14. Would your school district be willing to participate in a continuation of this study? YES NO 15. Would you like a c0py of the summary of the results? YES NO PLEASE NOTE: If your school system has any printed materials (policy statements, check lists, rating sheets, etc.) dealing with its program of teacher evaluation, we would appreciate receiving c0pies of such when you return this inquiry. Thank you. Please use the enclosed Business-repIy envelope or return your completed questionnaire to Mr. Bennett H. Litherland, 301 D Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. APPENDIX E LETTER AND POST CARD SENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE SIX DISTRICTS SELECTED FOR INTENSIVE STUDY APPENDIX E LETTER AND POST CARD SENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE SIX DISTRICTS SELECTED FOR INTENSIVE STUDY March 17, 1966 Approximately one-and-a-half months ago, you received, completed, and returned to me a questionnaire titled "An Inquiry Concerning the Evaluation of Teachers for Tenure." In that inquiry, you said that you would be willing to participate in a continuation of the study, the title of which is: AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS. The purpose of this letter is to find out if you are still interested in and willing to participate in the remainder of the study. The continuation of the study will consist of two parts: a second set of questionnaires and structured interviews. The questionnaires will be sent to the following persons in_the participating school districts: ' All superintendents of schools A sample of elementary principals A sample of secondary principals A sample of probationary teachers in their second or third year of probationary status 5. A sample of teachers who have acquired tenure within the previous four-year period 6. A sample of board of education members. bWNI—J O 0 .Actual sample sizes will be dependent upon how many school districts are willing to participate in a continuation of the study. However, approximate sample sizes per school (district will be: three elementary principals, two second- ary principals, ten probationary teachers, ten tenure 'teachers, and one board of education member. 131 the questionnaire, the participant will be asked to gjive their candid Opinions concerning the effectiveness (If the teacher evaluation program used by their school Iiistrict to determine whether or not probationary teachers 147 148 will be recommended for continuing tenure. However, no person or school district will be named or otherwise identified in any report of the findings. The questionnaires should take approximately twenty to thirty minutes to complete. Most questions can be answered with check marks or by circling letters and numbers. A few questions are of the short answer variety. The questionnaires for superintendents, principals, and teachers are quite similar. The major differences are found in questions asking for the participants' backgrounds and eXperience, and in the wording of questions which seek information about a specific subject on which superinten-I dents, principals, and teachers would have different views because of their different roles in the school system. An example of the questions included in these questionnaires is: 2. To your knowledge, what person(s) or group was (were) primarily responsible for initiating the develOpment of a program of teacher evaluation in your school system? Check EACH item that applies. a. Superintendent b. County (Intermediate) superintendent c. Other school administrators d. Supervisory staff e. Teachers f. Board of Education . 9. Community group (Please specify) h. Other (Please specify) In the questionnaire for board of education members, the items reflect the board's policy-making role in the school system. An example of a typical question for board of education members is: 7. Please list what you consider to be the major objectives which your school system wants to achieve through a program for evaluating teachers for tenure. 149 After the completed questionnaires have been returned, structured interviews will be scheduled with the superin— tendent of schools, the board of education member who received a questionnaire, a principal who received a questionnaire, and a probationary teacher who received a questionnaire, in each school system. To complete these phases of the study, the following in- formation will be needed from each school system: 1. A list of the names and school mailing addresses of all the probationary teachers who are in their second or third year of probationary status. 2. A list of the names and school mailing addresses of the teachers who have acquired continuing tenure within the previous four-yeargperiod. 3. A list of the names and business addresses of the members of the board of education. The lists will be kept completely confidential and will be used only for the selection of the persons who will receive the apprOpriate questionnaires. The names and school mailing addresses of the elementary and secondary principals will be secured from the 1965-66 edition of the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. Please use the enclosed post card to inform me of your decision concerning further participation in the study. If you desire more information before making a decision, please telephone me at 517-355-1015 or 517-353-3889. The enclosed envelope may be used to send me the lists of persons requested. Sincerely yours, Bennet H. Litherland Research Assistant 301 D Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 BL:cw encl. 150 Dear Mr. Litherland: Our school district is willing to participate in a continuation of the study, AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS. We will send you the lists as soon as possible. YES ___ NO . Sincerely, , Superintendent APPENDIX F COVER LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO THE PERSONNEL OF THE SIX SCHOOL DISTRICTS INTENSIVELY STUDIED APPENDIX F COVER LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO THE PERSONNEL OF THE SIX SCHOOL DISTRICTS INTENSIVELY STUDIED Cover Letter Sent to the Superintendents April 4, 1966 Thank you for allowing personnel of your school system to participate in a continuation of the study: AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Your willingness to personally participate is especially appreciated. The attached inquiry contains questions which pertain to- your school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure. The purpose of the inquiry is to secure your candid Opinions of the effectiveness of this program. The inquiry may be completed rapidly since check marks and circles are required for most responses. No person will be named or otherwise identified in any report of the findings. After the inquiry has been returned, your office will be called to schedule a personal interview. Thank you for your participation in this research project. Sincerely yours, Bennett H. Litherland Research Assistant 301 D Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 151 152 Cover Letter Sent to the Board of Education Members, Principals, Probationary TeaChers, and Tenure Teachers April 8, 1966 In the continuation of a research project sponsored by the Department of Administration and Higher Education, an intensive study is being made of programs for evaluating teachers for tenure in selected Michigan public school districts. Your school district is one of those which has been selected for intensive study. ApprOpriate versions of the attached inquiry are being sent to all superintendents of schools, and samples of probationary teachers, tenure teachers, principals, and board of education members in the selected school districts. The inquiry is being sent to you with the full knowledge and approval of the superintendent of schools of your school district. The purpose of the inquiry is to secure your candid Opin- ion of the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation program used by your school district to determine whether or not probationary teachers will be recommended for continuing tenure. Your participation in this study would be appre- ciated. The inquiry may be completed rapidly since Check marks and circles are required for most responses. No person will be named or otherwise identified in any report of the findings. Later, interviews will be held with a small number of the persons returning inquiries. Thank you for your partici- pation in this research project. Sincerely yours, Bennet H. Litherland Research Assistant 301 D Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 153 Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents AN INQUIRY TO SUPERINTENDENTS CONCERNING PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE Please provide the information as requested below by checking or filling in the apprOpriate blanks, or by circling the appropriate numbers. Your School System's Teacher Evaluation Program 1. To your knowledge, who was (were) primarily respons- a. Superintendent b. County (Intermediate) superintendent c. Other school administrators d. Supervisory staff e. Teachers f. Board of education 9. Community group(Please specify.) h. Other (Please specify.) 2. To your knowledge, who have had a part in the study and develOpment of your school system's program for evalu- ating teachers? Check EACH item that applies. a. Superintendent b. County (Intermediate) superintendent c. Principals d. Supervisors e. Teachers f. Board of education 9. Laymen h. Other (Please Specify.) 3. What Specific preparation for the evaluation of teachers does the school system give or require of the persons assigned primary responsibility for this task? Check EACH item that applies. a. Training in college courses b. Programs or workshops sponsored by the school system c. Written instructions 154 Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents d. One or more principals' meetings a year at which teacher evaluation is discussed e. Individual conferences between principal and superintendent at which teacher evalua— tion is discussed 9. Other (Please specify.) f. No Specific preparation is given or required What additional types of preparation in applying evaluation techniques would you recommend that the evaluators receive? To what extent has the role (duties, responsibilities) of probationary teachers in your school system been clearly defined? (Please eXplain your answer.) To what extent has "good teaching" been clearly defined in your school system? (Please explain your answer.) To what extent is the instrument (check- list, rating scale, test, etc.) used in your school system an effective device for evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please eXplain your answer.) To what extent Should emphasis be placed upon the use of instruments in the evalu- ation of teachers for tenure? (Please eXplain your answer.) NONE LITTLE SOME ' MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 155 Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents To what extent are apprOpriate steps taken MUCH in your school system to insure that all SOME evaluative information concerning teachers LITTLE NONE remains confidential? (Please describe these steps.) College credentials b. Summaries of evaluations by administrators and supervisors c. Summaries of teachers' self-evaluations d. Anecdotal reports e. Sample lesson plans f. Summaries of conferences with administrators and/or supervisors 9. Records of professional growth activities h. Records of certain classroom activities 1. Records of community activities j. Other (Please specify.) To what extent is the system of maintainé NONE ing personnel records for teacher evalua- LITTLE tion purposes adequate? (Please explain SOME your answer.) MUCH Who is primarily responsible for reviewing the accumulated data regarding probationary teachers? How often is the accumulated data regarding proba- tionary teachers reviewed? When a probationary teacher becomes eligible for tenure, that teacher will be recommended to the board of education for tenure? who makes the final decision whether or not 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 156 Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents a. Principal b. Superintendent c. Assistant Superintendent d. Supervisor e. A tenure committee f. Other (Please Specify.) With whom should rest the final responsibility for deciding whether or not a probationary teacher should be recommended for tenure? In recommending to the board of education YES tenure or dismissal for probationary NO teachers, does a statement of reasons' accompany the recommendation? To what extent do probationary teachers in MUCH your school system who need help in remov- SOME ing deficiencies receive adequate LITTLE assistance? (Please describe the kinds NONE of assistance given.) How has the program of teacher ___ LOWERED MORALE evaluation affected the morale ___ NOT AFFECTED MORALE of probationary teachers in IMPROVED MORALE the school system? (Please ___ eXplain your answer.) Does the evaluation of teachers increase YES teaching effectiveness? (Please eXplain NO your answer.) 20. 21. 157 Questionnaire Sent to the Superintendents To what extent is the board of education NONE in agreement with the present prOgram for LITTLE evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please SOME comment.) . MUCH Should your school system's formal, organ- ____YES ized program for evaluating teachers for ___ YES, with tenure be continued? (Please eXplain some changes your answer.) NO 158 inh- Questionnaire Sent to the Board of Education Members AN INQUIRY TO BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS CONCERNING PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE Please provide the information as requested below by checking or filling in the appropriate blanks, or by CircIing the appropriate numbers. General Information 1. To what extent is a systematic program needed for evaluating the work of teachers before they reach tenure status? (Please explain your answer.) 2. To what extent are the present board of education policies relating to the evalua- tion of teachers for tenure adequate? (Please eXplain your answer.) NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE 3. Check each statement listed below which, to the best of your knowledge, help to describe the part which your board of education had in the original develOp— ment of the present program of teacher evaluation. a. The board of education initiated the develOp- ment of policies relating to the evaluation of teachers jointly formulated the policies for the evaluation of teachers b. The board of education and the superintendent c. The superintendent was authorized to formu- late evaluation policies, with staff assis- tance, for later consideration by the board d. One or more members of the board served with a committee of teachers and administrators to formulate policies for board consideration 159 Questionnaire Sent to the Board of Education Members e. The board Of education, after a study of the recommendations offered for its consideration, made some basic changes in the recommendations before adopting the teacher evaluation policies ' f. The board of education, after a study of the teacher evaluation policies recommended by the superintendent, adOpted the policies with no substantial revisions 9. Other (Please Specify.) In your Opinion, who should be involved in the formula- tion of policy relating to the evaluation of teachers? Please list what you consider to be the major Objectives which your school system wants to achieve through a pro- gram for the evaluation of teachers for tenure. Does your board of education clearly under- YES stand how the program of teacher evaluation NO Operates in your school system? (Please comment.) To what extent do you believe that your NONE program of teacher evaluation is contribut- LITTLE ing to a general upgrading of teaching SOME effectiveness in your school system? MUCH (Please eXplain your answer.) 160 Questionnaire Sent to the Board of Education Members To what extent is your present program for MUCH evaluating teachers for tenure contributing SOME to the selective retention of the most able LITTLE teachers for tenure appointments?. (Please NONE comment.) DO you believe that the evaluation of ___ NO teachers for tenure is a major concern Of ____YES your school board? Why? 161 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals AN INQUIRY TO PRINCIPALS CONCERNING PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE Please provide the information as requested below by checking or filling in the appropriate blanks, or by circling the apprOpriate numbers. Your School System's Teacher Evaluation Program 1. To your knowledge, who was (were) primarily responsible for initiating the development of a program of teacher evaluation in your school system? Check EACH item that applies. a. Superintendent b. County (Intermediate) superintendent c. Other school administrators d. Supervisory staff e. Teachers f. Board of education 9. Community group (Please Specify.) h. Other (Please Specify.Y 2. To your knowledge, who have had a part in the stud and develOpment of your school system's program for evaluating teachers? Check EACH item that applies. a. Superintendent b. County (Intermediate) superintendents c. Principals d. Supervisors e. Teachers f. Board of education 9. Laymen h. Other (Please specify.) 3. What specific preparation for the evaluation of teachers does the school system give or require of the persons assigned primary responsibility for this task? Check EACH item that applies. a. Training in college courses b. Programs or workshops Sponsored by the school system c. Written instructions 162 Questionnaire Sent to the Prinqipals which teacher evaluation is discussed d. One or more principals' meetings a year at e. Individual conferences between principal and superintendent at which_teacher evaluation is discussed g. Other (Please specify.) f. No Specific preparation is given or required What additional types of preparation in applying evalu- ation techniques would you recommend that the evaluators receive? To what extent has the role (duties, responsibilities) of probationary teachers in your school system been clearly defined? (Please explain your answer.) To what extent has "good teaching" been clearly defined in your school system? (Please eXplain your answer.) To what extent is the instrument (check- list, rating scale, test, etc.) used in your school system an effective device for evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please explain your answer.) To what extent should emphasis be placed upon the use of instruments in the evalua- tion of teachers for tenure? (Please explain your answer.) NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 163 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals To what extent are apprOpriate steps taken MUCH in your school system to insure that all SOME evaluative information concerning teachers LITTLE remains confidential? (Please describe NONE these steps.) Check below the various kinds of information which are recorded and/or filed in the personnel records of probationary teachers. a. College credentials b. Summaries Of evaluations by administrators and supervisors c. Summaries of teachers' self-evaluations d. Anecdotal reports e. Sample lesson plans f. Summaries of conferences with administrators and/or supervisors g. Records of professional growth activities h. Records of certain classroom activities i. Records of community activities j. Other (Please Specify.) To what extent is the system of maintaining NONE personnel records for teacher evaluation LITTLE purposes adequate? (Please eXplain your SOME answer.) MUCH Who is primarily responsible for reviewing the accum- ulated data regarding probationary teachers? How often is the accumulated data regarding probationary teachers reviewed? When a probationary teacher becomes eligible for tenure, who makes the final decision whether or not that teacher will be recommended to the board of education for tenure? 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 164 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals a. Principal b. Superintendent c. Assistant superintendent d. Supervisor e. A tenure committee f. Other (Please specify.) With whom Should rest the final responsibility for deciding whether or not a probationary teacher Should be recommended for tenure? In recommending to the board of education YES tenure or dismissal for probationary NO teachers, does a statement of reasons accompany the recommendation? To what extent do probationary teachers in MUCH your school system who need help in remov- SOME ing deficiencies receive adequate assist- LITTLE ance? (Please describe the kinds of NONE assistance given.) How has the program of teacher LOWERED MORALE evaluation affected the morale NOT AFFECTED MORALE of probationary teachers in the IMPROVED MORALE school system? (Please eXplain your answer.) Does the evaluation of teachers increase NO teaching effectiveness? (Please explain YES your answer.) 20. 21. 165 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals To what extent is the board of education in NONE agreement with the present program for LITTLE evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please SOME comment.) MUCH Should your school system's formal, YES organized program for evaluating YES, with teachers for tenure be continued? some changes (Please eXplain your answer.) NO A 166 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals Practices and Procedures Used in Programs For Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Approximately how many times have you observed in each probationary teacher's classroom so far this schooI year? Place a number in EACH blank, estimating if you are not sure of the exact number. a. Total number of observations of at least 5 minutes, but less than 10 minutes each b. Total number of Observations of 10 minutes or more but less than 40 minutes c. Total number of observations of 40 minutes or more Was a conference held with the teacher YES following each classroom Observation? NO If the answer to No. 2 is "NO," approximately how many conferences have been held with each probationary teacher following classroom Observations so far this school year? How many evaluations have been made of each probationary teacher's work so far this school year in which an instrument was used? How does your school system inform probationary teachers of their evaluations? a. Teachers are given their own COpy of the evaluation report b. Teachers are shown a COpy of the evaluation report c. Teachers are informed orally of their evalua- tions d. Teachers are informed of their evaluations only if they ask e. Teachers are NOT informed of their evaluations Are probationary teachers asked to Sign the NO evaluation summaries to indicate that they YES have seen them? 10. 11. 167 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals To what extent, generally, are probationary NONE teachers in agreement with the evaluations LITTLE which are made of their work? (Please ex- SOME plain your answer.) MUCH Are there provisions in the program of YES evaluation for probationary teachers to NO Offer additional evidence if they believe that the evaluation has been undeservedly low? To what extent, so far this school year, MUCH have probationary teachers voluntarily SOME submitted information which was useful in LITTLE the evaluation of their work? NONE Check the ways, if any, in which probationary teachers evaluated, or sought assistance in evaluating, their own work SO far this school year. Through the use of self—rating or self- evaluating instruments Through requests to administrators and/or supervisors to Observe some phases of their teaching and to assist in evaluating it Through requests for evaluation conferences with administrators and/or supervisors re- garding some phase of their teaching Through the use of tests to measure pupil growth Other (Please specify.) Check the ways, if any, in which probationary teachers have been encouraged to evaluate their own work so far this school year. Through suggestions to use self-rating or self-evaluating instruments Through requests by administrators and/or supervisors for written self-evaluations of their work 168 Questionnaire Sent to the Principals Through individual conferences with administrators and/or supervisors Through group conferences with other proba- tionary teachers . Through group conferences with the faculty as a whole Other (Please Specify.) 169 Questionnaire Sent to the Teachers AN INQUIRY TO TEACHERS CONCERNING PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TEACHERS FOR TENURE Please provide the information as requested below by checking or filling in the apprOpriate blanks, or by circling the appropriate numbers. Personal Information How many years of full-time teaching experience have you had prior to this year? How many years have you taught in the present school system? At what grade level(s) are Circle ALL grades taught. 7 8 9 10 ll 12 TENURE TEACHERS ONLY: HOW you teaching this year? K 1 2 3 4 5 6 l3 14 many years have you held tenure status in the present school system? Your School System's Teacher Evaluation Progpam How familiar are you with your school system's formal, organized program for evaluating teachers for tenure? Check EACH item that applies. a. Know it exists b. Have been told about it c. Have read school it d. Have cerning it the program system policies concerning a copy of school system policies con- e. Participated in the initial develOpment of f. Have participated in the revision and improve- ment of the program 9. Other (Please Specify.) When was teachers for tenure explained to you? 170 Questionnaire Sent to the Teachers your school system's program for evaluating a. When you were interviewed for a teaching position b. After the interview but before school began c. During the first school year d. Other (Please specify.) To what extent have the duties and MUCH responsibilities of probationary teachers SOME in your school system been clearly defined? LITTLE (Please explain your answer.) NONE To what extent has "good teaching" been NONE clearly defined in the school system? LITTLE (Please eXplain your answer.) SOME MUCH What specific preparation for the evaluation of teachers does your school system give or require of the school principals (assistant SUperintendents for instruction) assigned primary responsibility for this task? Check EACH item that applies. Uncertain Training in college courses Programs or workshops sponsored by the school system Written instructions One or more principals' meetings a year at which teacher evaluation iS discussed Individual conferences between principal and superintendent at which teacher evaluation is discussed Other (Please Specify.) 10. 11. 171 Questionnaire Sent to the Teachers To what extent have the persons assigned MUCH the primary responsibility for evaluating SOME teachers for tenure had adequate prepara- LITTLE tion in applying evaluation techniques? NONE What additional types of preparation in applying evaluation techniques would you recommend that the evaluators receive? How did your knowledge Of the school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure affect your decision to accept a position in the school system? a. Did not affect my decision in any way b. Made the position less desirable c. Made the position more desirabIE PROBATIONARY TEACHERS ONLY: How does your knowledge of the school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure affect your intentions of remaining in the school system? a. Does pep affect my intentions in any way b. Tends to make the school system a less desirable place in which to teach c. Tends to make the school system a more desirable place in which to teach PROBATIONARY TEACHERS ONLY: Who will make the final decision, when you become eligible, whether or not you will be recommended for tenure? Principal Superintendent Assistant superintendent . Supervisor . A tenure committee . Don't know . Other (Please specify.) LQH'II'DO-IOU‘DJ F3 ['11 2 C.‘ H TEACHERS ONLY: How did your knowledge of the school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure affect your intentions of remaining in the school system? 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 172 Questionnaire Sent to the Teachers a. Did not affect my intentions in any way b. TendEd‘to make the school system a less desirable place in which to teach c. Tended to make the school system a more desirable place in which to teach TENURE TEACHERS ONLY: Who made the final decision, when you became eligible, whether or not you would be recommended to the board of education for tenure? a. Principal b. Superintendent c. Assistant superintendent d. Supervisor e. A tenure committee f. Don't know g. Other (Please specify.) With whom should the final responsibility rest for deciding whether or not a teacher Should be recommended for tenure? To what extent is the instrument (check- list, rating scale, test, etc.) used in your school system an effective device for evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please eXplain your answer.) TO what extent should emphasis be placed upon the use of instruments in the evalu- ation of teachers for tenure? TO what extent are apprOpriate steps taken in your school system to insure that all evaluative information concerning teachers remains confidential? (Please describe the steps that are taken.) NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 173 Questionnaire Sent to the Teachers TO what extent do probationary teachers in MUCH your school system who need help in remov- SOME ing deficiencies receive adequate LITTLE assistance? (Please describe the kinds of NONE assistance given.) ‘ How has the program of teacher LOWERED MORALE evaluation affected the morale NOT AFFECTED MORALE Of probationary teachers in IMPROVED MORALE the school system? (Please eXplain your answer.) Does the evaluation of teachers increase YES teaching effectiveness? (Please describe NO your answer.) To what extent is the board of education in NONE agreement with the present program for LITTLE evaluating teachers for tenure? (Please SOME explain your answer.) MUCH Should your school system's formal, YES organized program for evaluating YES, with teachers for tenure be continued? some changes (Please explain your answer.) NO ma.- 174 L}: Questionnaire Sent to Probationary Teachers PROBATIONARY TEACHERS ONLY! TENURE TEACHERS SKIP TO "PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS" Practices and Procedures Used in Programs for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure Who has the rimar reSponSibility for evaluating the work of probationary teachers in your school system? a. Principal b. Supervisor c. Superintendent d. Assistant superintendent e. Other (Please Specify.) Who, if anyone, assists in evaluating your work as a a. No one b. Principal c. Supervisor d. Superintendent e. Assistant Superintendent f. Other (Please Specify.) Approximately how many times has your classroom teach- ing been observed by the principal of your school so far this school year? Place a number in EACH blank, estimating if you are not sure of the exact number. a. Total number of observations of at least 5 minutes, but less than 10 minutes each b. Total number of observations of 10 minutes or more but less than 40 minutes c. Total number of observations of 40 minutes or more Has the evaluator held a conference with NO you following each observation? YES If the answer to NO. 4 is "No," approximately how many conferences has the principal held with you following classroom observations so far this school year? How many evaluations have been made of your work so far this school year in which an instrument was used? 10. 11. 12. 175 Questionnaire Sent to Probationary Teachers How are you informed of your teacher evaluations? Check EACH item that applies. a. Given a COpy of the evaluation report c. Informed orally of my evaluations d. Informed of my evaluation only if e. NOT informed of my evaluations Are you asked to Sign the evaluation summaries to indicate that you have seen them? TO what extent are you in agreement with the evaluations which are made of your work (assuming that you are informed of the results)? (Please eXplain your answer.) Are there provisions in the program of evaluation for probationary teachers for you to submit additional information if you believe that the evaluation has been undeservedly low? To what extent, so far this school year, have you voluntarily submitted information which would be useful in the evaluation of your work? b. Shown a COpy of the evaluation report I ask YES NO MUCH SOME LITTLE NONE YES NO DON'T KNOW NONE LITTLE SOME MUCH Check the ways, if any, in which you have evaluated, or sought assistance in evaluating, your own work so far this school year. a. Through the use of self-rating or evaluating instruments self- b. Through requests to administrators and/or supervisors to Observe some phases of my teaching and to assist in evaluating it c. Through requests for evaluation conferences with administrators and/or supervisors re- garding some phase Of my teaching d. Through the use of tests to measure pupil growth e. Other (Please specify.) __‘a .‘L-I'— '0' 13. 176 Questionnaire Sent to Probationary Teachers Check the ways, if any, in which you have been encouraged by others to evaluate your own work, so far this school year. a. Through suggestions to use self-rating or self—evaluating instruments b. Through requests by administrators and/or supervisors for written evaluations of my work c. Through individual conferences with administra- tors and/or supervisors d. Through group conferences with other proba- tionary teachers e. Through group conferences with the faculty as a whole f. Other (Please specify.) 177 run-I21; -I. ‘ Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel The Purposes, Standards, and Sources of Data Included in the Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure In Column A, please indicate whether each purpose, standard, source of data listed is included in the program for evaluating teachers for tenure in your school system. If the item is includedy circle the word "Yes." If the item is NOT included, circle the word "NO.“I Ifyou are uncertain, do not circle either word. There is no expectation that your school system uses all of the items listed in its teacher evaluation program. Feel free to add other items. In Column B, rate the value Of each purpose, standard, and source of data according to the following code: ************************************************************* * 0 - NO VALUE 1 - LITTLE VALUE 2 - SOME VALUE 3 - MUCH VALUE ************************************************************* Rate the items you have circled "Yes" according to their actual values aspyou have Observed them in your school system. Rate the items you have NOT circled or have circled "NO" according to the values they might have in a program for evaluating teachers for tenure. Please circle the appropriate number. A. Included B. Actual Or In Your Potential Evaluation Value* Program 1. The Purposes Of the Program for Evaluating Teachers for Tenure a. To give the professional teacher recognition that is deserved . . . . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 b. To assess the status and quality of teaching performance . . . . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 178 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE 1-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE 3-MUCH VALUE ********************************************************** A. Included B. Actual Or In Your Potential Evaluation Value* Program c. To promote the profes- sional develOpment of teachers by helping them become aware of their strengths and weaknesses YES NO 0 l 2 3 d. To give assistance to teachers who need help YES NO 0 l 2 3 e. TO improve instruction YES NO 0 1 2 3 f. TO secure information which would be useful in taking administrative action (such as promotion, reassignment, and dis- missal . . . . . . . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 9. TO determine the effective- ness of the instructional program . . . . . . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 h. To determine the effective- ness of personnel policies and procedures . . . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 i. TO provide the basis for supervisory and in-service develOpment programs . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 j. To facilitate accounting for responsibility . . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 k. To motivate teachers to strive for a high level of performance . . . . . YES NO 0 1 2 3 1. To provide the basis for rewards or sanctions . . YES NO 0 l 2 3 179 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE 1-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE ********************************************************** A. Included In Your Evaluation Program To assist the teacher in achieving success . . . YES NO To choose worthy teachers for long-term appoint- ments . . . . . . . . . YES NO To test the validity of the recruitment and selec- tion processes . . .,. YES NO To ascertain the potential of the individual to per- form various kinds of tasks . . . . . . . . . YES NO TO recognize excellence . in teaching . . . . . . YES NO Other (Please Specify.) YES NO The Standards by which the Work of Probationary Teachers is Evaluated a. b. Adequate knowledge of subject matter . . . . YES Selection of subject matter taught in the classroom . . . . . . . YES NO NO 3-MUCH VALUE B. Actual Or Potential Value* 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 O 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 180 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE 1-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE *************************************t******************** A. Included In Your Evaluation Program Organization of work and preparation of daily lesson plans . . . . . . YES NO Use and interpretation of tests, and measurement of pupil capacity and achievement . . . . . . YES NO Skill in making assign- ments and develOping good study habits in pupils . . . . . . . . . YES Providing for individual differences in pupils . YES Use of instructional and audio-visual materials . YES Deve10pment of such personal attributes in pupils such as critical thinking, creativity, personal habits of health, cleanliness, and courtesy . . . . . . YES Effective classroom manage- ment (acceptable discipline, attending to the physical conditions Of the class- room, being prompt and accurate with records and reports) . . . . . . . . YES NO NO NO NO NO 3-MUCH VALUE B. Actual Or Potential Value* 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 O l 2 3 0 1 2 3 O l 2 3 181 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE l-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE 3-MUCH VALUE ********************************************************** A. Regard for the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being of pupils . . . . . . . . Participation in faculty meetings, curriculum develOpment, and faculty committees . . . . . . Extraclass participation (assuming and carrying out responsibilities for Included extracurricular activities, participation in community affairs, etc.) . . . . Desirable personal characteristics (pleasant voice, tactful, good health, attractive appearance, etc.) . . Extent of desirable pupil growth or achievement Professional attitudes (ethical, loyal, posi- tive, etc.). . . . . . Professional growth (edu- cational travel, advanced study, participation in the in-service program and in professional organiza- tions, etc.) . . . . . B. Actual Or In Your Potential Evaluation Value* Program YES NO 0 l 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 YES NO 0 1 2 3 M E1... 182 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE l-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE ***********************************t********************** A. Included q. Effective use of appro- priate teaching methods and techniques . . . . r. Recognizes and under- stands the needs of the child, the adult, and the community . . . . s. Satisfactory interpersonal relationships (good rela- tionships with peers, administration, pupils, and parents) . . . . . t. Adequate knowledge of child growth and develop- ment . . . . . . . . . u. Other (Please Specify.) The Sources Of Data for Making Judgments about the Work of ProbationaryTeachers a. Teacher self-evaluation b. Evaluation of teachers by pupils . . . . . . . . . c. Evaluation of teachers by school administrators . In Your Evaluation Program YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 3-MUCH VALUE B. Actual Or Potential Value* 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 183 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE 1-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE ***t****************************************************** A. Evaluation of teachers by supervisors . . . . . . Evaluation by other teachers . . . . . . . Evaluation by Special committees . . . . . . Evaluation by outside professional eXpertS . Evaluation by lay citizens Evaluation by pupils' parents . . . . . . . . Teachers' cumulative personnel record informa- tion 0 O I O O O O I 0 Classroom observation . Evaluation based on pupil changes . . . . . . . . Pupil test results . . Teachers' responses to questionnaires and examinations . . . . . Teachers' participation in community activities Included In Your Evaluation Program YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES ‘ NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 3-MUCH VALUE B. Actual Or Potential Value* 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 O 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 O l 2 3 O l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 184 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel ********************************************************** O-NO VALUE 1-LITTLE VALUE 2-SOME VALUE 3-MUCH VALUE ********************************************************** A. Included B. Actual Or In Your Potential Evaluation Value* Program p. Teachers' records of additional training . . YES NO 0 1 2 3 q. Other (Please specify.) YES NO 0 1 2 3 185 Questionnaire Sent to All Personnel Problems and Recommendations 1. What do you consider to be the major problems or Obstacles your school system has.encountered in carry- ing out an effective program for evaluating teachers for tenure? 2. If you were to recommend improvements in your school system's program for evaluating teachers for tenure, list below the recommendations you would make. Please indicate the rank order of importance of each recommend- ation; i.e., first, second, third, etc. WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM ALL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS INTENSIVELY STUDIED? YES NO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. Please use the enclosed business-reply envelOpe or return your completed inquiry to Mr. Bennett H. Litherland, 301 D Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED INQUIRY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ”"II’II'I‘IIHIIIIIIIIfillfllfifliI‘IMlifflfiflW