A COMPARISON OF SELETED
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
EN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO EXTSTING RESEARCH IN
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MTCHTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DOUGLAS B. LU'ND
1972

  

_ g
LIB RA R Y

Michigan Static
University

      

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A COMPARISON OF SELECTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO EXISTING RESEARCH IN

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

presented by

DOUGLAS B. LUND

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . Administration and

Higher Education

gem flow

I .
Major professor

Jegree in

 

Date //’2’/972/

0-7639

 

: ,5 ._ EHI

  
   

  

BOOK BINDERI’

  

LIBRARY BINDERS ”H .

srmapommcumu "{ I

I‘Ill

 

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF SELECTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO EXISTING RESEARCH IN
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

By

Douglas B. Lund

Purposes of the study were three-fold: (1) To survey the
current practices concerning teacher evaluation and professional growth
programs in selected Michigan school districts. (2) To compare these
personnel management functions to the literature base in these areas.
(3) To suggest practices and procedures in teacher evaluation and
professional growth programs appropriate fbr local school districts.

The population of the study included the total number of K-12
public school districts within the intermediate school districts of
Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, washtenaw
and wayne.

The principal source of data collection was a questionnaire
deve10ped by the researcher and sent to all public school superin-
tendents within the described area. In addition, personal interviews
were also conducted with central administrative officers of sixteen

school districts distributed by student population categories.

Douglas B. Lund

A total response of 80.3 per cent was received. Data were

analyzed primarily through the use of student population categories

and reflected through means and percentages. Commentary from re-

spondents was included separate from the statistical analysis.

The following major findings are reported:

Major Findings

 

The building principal is perceived as the key administrator
with regard to: conduct of staff evaluation, the development

of evaluation procedures, proportion of work role devoted to

 

evaluation and staff professional growth activities, partici-
pation in instructional or curriculum councils, development,

administration and evaluation of district professional growth

 

activitiesp and responsibility to assist individual teachers

 

in planning professionalpgrowth programs.

 

Teacher evaluation practices in surveyed school districts have
been primarily developed by administration and teachers. The

participation of students and parents is consistently low.

The conduct of teacher evaluation is primarily the reSponsi-
bility of the building principal. Teachers have little re-
sponsibility for teacher evaluation. Students and parents

have almost no part in the process.

Perceived responsibility fer teacher evaluation reflects the

principal as the major evaluating agent with a substantial

Douglas B. Lund

movement towards greater teacher participation. The intent to
have greater participation on the part of students and parents

is also clearly indicated.

Substantial differences exist concerning frequency of eval-
uation when tenure and probationary groups are compared.

Only 51 per cent of reporting districts evaluated tenure
teachers annually or more frequently. This disparity, when
compared to the literature which strongly recommends continuous

evaluation, stands out in bold relief.

School districts are consistent when present purposes of eval-
uation are compared with ideal purposes, with the exception
that school districts place a high value on the administration
of salary increases as an ideal purpose of evaluation. Present
practice places administration of salary increases as the
lowest of all evaluation purposes. This perception is

probably associated with the finding that 3 districts of

the total of 100 reporting, indicated the existence of a type

of merit rating or teacher performance plan.

Rating scales as an evaluation instrument are extensively
used (composite 73 per cent) although less frequently in

larger districts. The contrast between practice and the

literature opinion that rating scales are an inadequate

evaluative tool is apparent.

8.

10.

11.

Douglas B. Lund

Formalized training sessions to orient administrators with
evaluation techniques and procedures are reported in 55 per
cent of the districts when taken as a composite. The contrast
with the literature base which urges continuous, effective
administrator orientation to evaluative procedures is again
apparent. Larger districts, however, did show higher

participation in reported administration training programs.

The prime sources for administrative evaluation procedures
occur within the local school districts, with cooperative
efforts involving other school districts next in importance.
The limited use of resources from colleges and universities,
intermediate districts, management consultant organizations
and professional organizations again sharply contrasts with
the literature recommending multiple sources for maximum

administration effectiveness in the evaluation process.

The deve10pment, administration and evaluation of district
professional growth activities is primarily administrator—
teacher centered. Parents and students play a very minor

role in these functions.

Widespread presence of the staff counseling concept designed
to aid professional growth does not exist as an adminis-
trator responsibility. Neither is evidence feund to verify
that the teacher peer group portrays a significant role in

the counseling process.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Douglas B. Lund

The difficulties of providing time and financial resources

fer inservice training programs appear to be a significant
limiting factor in implementation of these programs. Numerous
comments were offered concerning the restrictive current
financial climate and bleak future projects. The time factor
also appears to be associated with collective bargaining

ramifications.

Instructional Councils charged with the staff development
function play a major role regarding the "clearing house"
concept for consideration of innovative concepts, but a minor
role in evaluating staff development and professional growth

activities.

Public school districts primarily utilize local resources
for on-going professional growth activities, although the
degree of involvement for other sources is considerably

higher than indicated under the teacher evaluation section.

Very little infermation was reported to conclude that the
teaching process and teacher responsibility for same have as
yet been defined in specific terms of evaluation of the

attainment of learning objectives.

District merit rating systems are almost non-existent in

reporting schools.

A COMPARISON OF SELECTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO EXISTING RESEARCH IN

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

By

Douglas B; Lund

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

1972

DEDICATION

The need to include multiple dedicatees is most apparent to
the writer. Initially, to my wife, Ann, who has truly combined in
unselfish measure all of the most desired attributes of wife and
mother, continually providing an atmosphere of love, reassurance and
unwavering support for her husband and children. To Douglas, Nancy
and Karen who generously lent their spirit of encouragement to the
furtherance of their father's educational program. Then to my
mother and late father, Ralph Lund, both of whom by example and
precept, have greatly contributed to the institution and completion

of this objective.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is appreciative of the genuine interest and sup-
portive guidance which Dr. Floyd G. Parker has offered in his capacity
as major adviser for this thesis.

Additional committee members who contributed generously of
their expertise and understanding to assist in the completion of my
program are: Dr. Keith C. Groty and Dr. Charles A. Blackman. A
special note of gratitude is extended to Dr. Clyde C. Campbell for his
patience, wisdom and encouragement during the period of the writer's
internship with the Mott Inter-University Leadership Training Center
and subsequent period of study.

Further, the writer is grateful for the stimulus, encourage-
ment and assistance which Dr. William J. Early, General Superin-
tendent, Flint Community Schools, Flint, Michigan, has so unstintingly
given over the years of our friendship.

An additional thank-you is reserved for Mr. James Maass of
Educational Research Services who greatly aided the author in the

preparation of the study design and data analysis procedures.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 6
Significance of the Problem . . . . . 6
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . 8
Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . 11
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 12
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . 14
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . 16
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 18
An Overview . . . . . . . . . 18
A Brief Review of Personnel Management
Developments . . . . . . . . 18
Recent Personnel Management Developments . . . 26
Relationships Between Programs of Teacher
Evaluation and Professional Growth . . . . 26
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . 28
Purposes of Professional Growth Programs . . . 35
Factors Affecting the Teacher Evaluation
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Administrative Position . . . . . . . . 40
Teacher Organization Position . . . . . . 42
Teacher Perceptions of Evaluation . . . . 44
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . 46
Problems of Measurement . . . . . . . . 48
Deve10pment of Evaluation Programs . . . . 54
Resource Commitment . . . . . . . . . 56
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . 58

iv

Chapter Page

Factors Affecting Professional Growth

PrOgrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Administrative Position . . . . . . . 59
Teacher Perceptions of Professional
Growth . . . . . . . 62
Goals, Objectives and Evaluation . . . . . 64
Resource Commitment . . . . . . . . . 67
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Changes in Emphasis . . . . . . . . . 71
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Type of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
POpulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . 82
Coding and Tabulation of Data . . . . . . . 83
Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . 85
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 86
Teacher Evaluation Programs . . . . . . . 86
Staff Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . 86
Written Personnel Policies . . . . . . . 87
Written Job Descriptions . . . . . . . 87
Opinion of Evaluation Procedures . . . . . 87
Existence of Written Evaluation
Procedures . . . . . 90
Degree of ReSponsibility for Conduct
of Staff Evaluation . . . . . . 90
ReSponsibility Which Should Exist for
the Conduct of Staff Evaluation . . . . 92
Administrative Wbrk Responsibility
Devoted to Evaluation . . . . . . 92
Frequency of Probationary Teacher
Evaluation . . . . . . . 94
Frequency of Tenure Teacher Evaluation . . . 94

Frequency of Classroom Observations
Preceding Evaluation (Probationary
Teachers) . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter Page

Frequency of Classroom Observations
Preceding Evaluation (Tenure

Teachers) . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Scheduled Conferences to Discuss

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 102
Written Evaluation to Teacher . . . . . . 102
Annual Composite Evaluation . . . . . . 102
Teacher Initiated Request for Evaluation . . . 104
Administrative Prerogative to Initiate

Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . 104
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation . . . . . . 104
Types of Evaluation Instruments . . . . . . 108
Student Achievement Compared to

District Goals . . . . . . . . . . 110
Compensation Based on Merit or

Teacher Performance . . . . . . . . 110
Responsibility fbr Development of

Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . . . 111
Training Sessions to Implement

Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . . . 111
Sources of Training Procedures . . . . . . 113
General Comments . . . . . . . . . . 113

Professional Growth Programs . . . . . . . . 116

Importance of Professional Growth PrOgrams . . 116
Availability of Professional Growth

Activities or Services . . . . . . 117
Professional Growth Activities or Services

Governed by Master Contract Provisions . . 117
Professional Growth Activities Resulting

in Additional Compensation . . . . . . 117
Instructional or Curriculum Policies

Council . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Reported Functions of Instructional

Councils . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Participation in Operation of

Instructional Councils . . . . . . . 122
Administrative Responsibility Devoted

to Professional Growth Activities . . . . 122
ReSponsibility fbr Developing Professional

Growth Activities . . . . . . . . 125
Responsibility for Administrating

District Professional Growth Activities . . 125

vi

Chapter Page

Responsibility fer Evaluating District

Professional Growth Activities . . . . . 128
Participation Level for Professional

Growth Activities . . . . . 128
Planning With Individual Staff Members

Concerning Professional Growth . . . . . 128

Responsibility for Planning Professional
Growth Activities With Individual

Teachers . . . . . . 131
Release of Students for Conduct of District

Professional Growth Activities . . . . . 131
Sources of Professional Growth Activities . . 131
Success of Professional Growth PrOgram . . . 134
General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 134

V. SULMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMHENDATIONS

FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . 138

The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . 138

The Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . 138

The Population . . . . . . . . . . . 138

The Instruments . . . . . . 139

Procedure for Data Collection and Analysis . . 139

The Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . 139

Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Recommendations for School Districts . . . . . 145

Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . 149

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
APPENDICES

Appendix

A. Central Staff Personnel Initially Interviewed
Concerning Role of Personnel Management in

Public Schools . . . . . . . . . 157
B. Questionnaire for Data Collection . . . . . . . 158
C. Letter to School Superintendents . . . . . . . 168
D. Follow-up Letter to Superintendents . . . . . . 169

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Student Population Categories by Intermediate
District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

2. Participants in Formal Interview Procedures by
Student Population Categories . . . . . . . . . 81

3. Responses by Intermediate School Districts Within
Population Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4. Staff Evaluation Procedures Included in Teaching
Master Contract; Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . 88

5. Written Board of Education Policies Supplementing
Master Contract Provisions; Reported in Percentage
Yes. 0 O O I O O O O 0 O O O I 0 O O 0 88

6. Written Job Descriptions for Teaching Staff Positions;
Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . 89

7. Opinion of Staff Evaluation Procedures, Reported
in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

8. Formal Written Evaluations of Teaching Staff
Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . 91

9. Degree of Responsibility fer Current Conduct of Staff
Evaluation Reported in Means . . . . . . . . . 91

10. Degree of Responsibility that Should Exist fbr Conduct
of Staff Evaluation, Reported in Means . . . . . . 93

ll. Proportion of Administrative Wbrk Responsibility
Devoted to Evaluation Process, Reported in

Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
12. Frequency of Evaluation for Probationary Teachers . . . 96
13. Frequency of Evaluation fer Tenure Teachers . . . . . 98

viii

Table Page

14. Graph Reporting Composite Frequency of Evaluation
by Probationary and Tenure Teachers . . . . . . . 99

15. Classroom Observations of Probationary Teachers
Preceding Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

16. Classroom Observations of Tenure Teachers
Preceding Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

17. Annual Composite Evaluation for Probationary Teachers;
Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . 103

18. Annual Composite Evaluation for Tenure Teachers;
Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . 103

19. Composite Purposes of Evaluation, Reported in Means. . . 105

20. Types of Evaluation Instruments Used; by Population
Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

21. Responsibility fer Deve10pment of Evaluation Procedures
Reported in Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

22. Sources of Training to Implement Evaluation Procedures,
Reported in Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

23. Enhancing and Retarding Factors in Teacher Evaluation
Programs Arranged in Rank Order . . . . . . . . 115

24. Opinion Regarding Importance of Staff Professional
Growth Programs as a School District Responsibility;
Reported in Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

25. Professional Growth Activities or Services Available
to Teachers, Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . 118

26. Professional Growth Activity or Services Governed
by Master Contract Provisions, Reported in
Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

27. Professional Growth Activities Resulting in
Additional Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . 120

28. Responsibility for Direct Participation in the

Operation of Instructional Councils, Reported
in Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

ix

Table Page

29. Proportion of Administrative ReSponsibility Devoted
to Professional Growth Activities, Reported
in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

30. Responsibility for Develo in District Professional
Growth Activities Reporteg in Means . . . . . . 126

31. Responsibility fer Administering District Professional
Growth Activities, Reported'in Means . . . . . 127

 

32. Responsibility for Evaluatin District Professional
Growth Activities Reportag in Means . . . . . . 129

33. Minimum Participation Level for Professional Growth
Activities; Reported in Percentage Yes . . . . . 130

34. Formal Planning with Staff Members fer Professional
Growth Purposes; Reported in Percentage Yes . . . 130

35. Responsibility for Planning Professional Growth
Activities with Individual Teachers, Reported
in Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

36. Number of Days Students Released for District Pro—
fessional Growth Activities, Reported in Means . . 132

37. Involvement of Sources in Professional Growth
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

38. Success of Professional Growth Programs, Reported
in Percentage Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

39. Enhancing and Retarding Factors in Professional
Growth Programs, Arranged in Rank Order . . . . 136

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

We are all blind until we see
That in the human plan,
Nothing is worth the making
If it does not make the man,
Why build these cities glorious
If man unbuilded goes
In vain we build the world, unless
the builder also grows.
Edwin Markham
1852-1940

The Problem

 

The author has been guided by two criteria in the selection of
a research topic. Initially, the belief exists that the research
study and subsequent results should have direct value to the field
of public school administration, with general applicability to the
overall management process. Secondly, that the conduct of such a
study would result in a greater personal competency in the researched
area. The personnel management process appears to have potential to
satisfy both criteria.

There is agreement among authorities in both education and
business fields as to the importance of personnel management.
Castetter's comment is representative of the educational area when

he states:

The primary mission of the personnel function in any organ-
ization is to attract, develop and maintain an effective group
of personnel who will contribute willingly to attainment of
organizational goals.1

French presents a comprehensive view of the totality of
personnel management:

Personnel management is the recruitment, selection, develop-
ment, utilization of, and accommodation to, human resources by
organizations. The human resources of an organization consist
of all individuals, regardless of their role, who are engaged
in any of the organization's activities.

Beach, from a business viewpoint, illustrates the reality that
personnel management is an on-going function even in the absence of
formally established personnel departments.

The work of personnel management pervades the entire organ-
ization. Personnel work must be carried on in the company too
small to justify a separate personnel department. In larger
establishments that do contain personnel departments, personnel
management activities are performed by both operating managers and
by the staff personnel unit.3

However, a most significant factor, unique to education, creates
a distinct separation between education-personnel management and that
of business and industry. The impact of teacher influence extends to
a large number of students. Thus, by the very nature of human re-

lationships, a variable of considerable complexity is inserted into

the learning environment. Consequently, the individual and collective

 

1William B. Castetter, The Personnel Function in Educational
Administration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971), p. 11.

 

2Wendell French, The Personnel Management Process: Human
Reppurces Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970),
p. 3.

3Dale 8. Beach, Personnel, The Management of People at Work

(2nd ed.; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 12.

competencies and weaknesses embodied in a teaching staff will have a
substantial effect on the instructional success of that school
district. Moffit presents a rationale for differing education eval-
uation instruments than are typically used in industry.

The real fact is that teaching is different from working on

a production line where articles or produce in packages can be
counted and where any deviation from the standard article is

a sign of a defect. Education is both a process and, in a
sense, an end. Education serves to make people alike and to
make them different. Consequently, any evaluation or rating
program intended to improve the quality of teaching will be
confronted with problems which are not present in the production
of material goods.

Current appropriate information concerning the status of
personnel management practices in Michigan public school districts
is limited. In the background development of the topic, few refer-
ences were discovered embracing the period of 1951 to 1971. The fore-
going has pertinence, because organizational personnel practices,
whether well-founded and administered, or poorly conceived and ad-
ministered, directly affect the working potential of virtually all
employees, be it in the private or public sectors.

As a further means of assessing the perceived role of per-
sonnel management in Michigan public schools, contact was made,
either by telephone or personal interview, with a number of super-
intendents and staff administrators charged with personnel management
responsibilities (see Appendix A, page 157). The districts in-

cluded represent a reasonably broad Spectrum with regard to number

of students, diversity of clientele, financial resources, and growth

 

1John C. Moffit, Inservice Education for Teachers (Washing—
ton, D.C.: The Center for Applied ResearEh’in Education, Inc., 1963),
p. 102.

 

potential. As might be expected, the superintendent's involvement with
day-to-day personnel management activities was governed principally

by the student enrollment of the district. Yet, in all five of the
districts surveyed, unanimous agreement was demonstrated regarding

the integral part which personnel management processes played in

school operations. Indeed, some aspect of personnel management
appeared to be present in nearly all areas of school operation.

The advent of mandatory professional negotiations (collective
bargaining) was noted by all interviewed to mark a significant change
in the traditional administrative-staff relationships. The current
atmosphere was considered to be much more of an adversary posture
than heretofore. Collective bargaining and its ramifications continue
to occupy much of the professional energies of these superintendents,
particularly in the smaller districts, where at times, the superin-
tendent may serve as the chief negotiator for the system. Other
areas of prime concern were teacher evaluation, inservice education
and staffing. It is of interest that the general field of supportive
services designed to enhance employee commitment and loyalty to the
organization, was not verbalized as a formal concept, but did surface
in comments related to effective human relations programs. It well
could be that a rec0gnition of the importance of this component of
personnel management does exist, but apparently policies have not yet
been formalized so as to be incorporated into school district operating
procedures.

The literature provides additional insight regarding the effect

of collective bargaining in Michigan school districts. The recent

analysis of school management practices by Kai L. Erickson, refers to
substantial changes in the emphasis devoted to employment relations
as a result of the Michigan collective bargaining law instituted in
1965. The varied efferts of local school districts to cope with the
bargaining process are also described. Erickson suggests:

What appears evident is the emergence of the need for new
specialized school management personnel. Such specialists need
background in grievance arbitration, labor law, negotiation
strategy, and familiarity with the dynamics of collective
action.

Also related to the rec0gnized problems of chief school offi-
cers, is the study in which 118 superintendents in Nebraska were
asked to identify problems of the superintendency by rank order.

In an attempt to gain an overall view of the overriding
problems of the school superintendent, a rating scheme was
administered which provided a relative degree of difficulty
factor for each problem classification. Problems of Teacher
Personnel dominated the summary analysis with an index of
1,394 as compared with the four next highest ranked problems
of Public Relations, 606; Pupil Personnel Problems, 554;
Increasing Educational Costs and Financial Problems, 428; and
Problems Related to the Board of Education with an index
rating 392.2

It would appear from the feregoing that a substantial amount of
chief administrator time and expertise is devoted to the teacher

personnel sector. Undoubtedly, these superintendents would be recep—

tive to strategies designed to accommodate these types of problems.

 

1Kai L. Erickson, "New Management Figures in Michigan School
Administration," Phi Delta Kappan, LI (April, 1970), 426-27.

 

2Scott M. Norton, "Current Problems of the School Superin-
tendent," The Clearingouse, XLIV (September, 1971), 19.

 

Purpose of the Study

 

In consideration of the preceding commentary, it is submitted
that the personnel management process occupies a vital role in the
operation of public school districts; therefore a study of selected
personnel management functions would have pertinence for the educa-
tional field. The purpose of this study, therefore, is threefold:

1. To determine the current status of selected personnel
management practices in selected Michigan public school

districts.

2. To relate selected personnel management practices in selected
Michigan public school districts to the existing literature

base.

3. To make recommendations against the study results and the
literature backdrop designed to further the development of

more adequate public school personnel management practices.

Significance of the Problem

 

Personnel management practices play a vital role in the
hoped-for successful adjustment of the employee to his work situation.
In the successive steps of the employment process, ranging from re-
cruitment to retirement or termination, much is done to either enhance
or inhibit the employee's self-image, his perceptions of the organ—
ization, and his subsequent value to the organization. However, in the
opinion of some, public schools taken as a group, have not been in the
vanguard of sophisticated personnel management practices. Davis

describes the background rationale for creation of specific

personnel departments in public schools, strongly suggesting that
inadequate resources have been devoted to school personnel management
activities.

The dependence of the educational program on an effective
personnel prOgram is the core of the total staff concept. To
develop and maintain a professional staff with the competencies
required to meet all educational needs demands a deliberate effort
with close attention to coordination and continuity within the
total undertakings of the school system. The lack of an adequate
professional personnel program is the most critical problem
facing American public schools.1

As was stated previously, education has some distinguishing

attributes which place considerable responsibility upon the personnel
management function to select, maintain and develop highly qualified
employees so as to foster more adequate learning opportunities for
children. Campbell has identified a number of these items which have
applicability to school systems. Despite the comprehensiveness of
Campbell's list, the area of employee development does not appear.

It should be stated, however, that Campbell does discuss the subject
in a commentary immediately following this section. The fbllowing
range of responsibilities illustrates the scope of personnel manage-
ment in schools:

1) Recruitment and selection procedures.

2) State certification requirements, plus special local
modifications.

3) Salary schedules, including the important details of the
number and amount of annual increments, number of "tracks"
recognizing training and experience and provision for Special
assignments.

4) Evaluation of performance.
5) Tenure provisions.

 

1Donald E. Davis and Neal C. Nickerson, Jr., Critical
Issues in School Personnel Administration (Chicago: Rand McNally
and Company, 1968), p. 107.

6) Promotion and transfer.

7) Retirement and other forms of separation.

8) Leaves of absence; sabbaticals.

9) Relations with professional organizations.

10) "Fringe" benefits, including group insurance, health services,
and travel expenses.

11) Controversial issues and antisubversive legislation.

12) Miscellaneous local "ground rules" respecting working
conditions.1

The advent of collective bargaining in the public sector
created new dimensions for personnel administrators. Those employment
practices which once may have been "understood" were now reduced to
agreed-upon, written documents. The need to have personnel adminis-
trators involved in the collective bargaining process, either as
negotiators or as advisors, is another example of these expanding
reSponsibilities and should be recognized as such.

In view of the foregoing, the premise is made that public
school personnel activities are an important part of school district
operations. Therefore, it is expected that this study of selected
personnel management practices in Michigan public schools will be
compared to the literature base fer surveyed areas; will help to
determine the current status of personnel administration in studied

areas; and will provide supportive data for possible implementation

of more comprehensive personnel management practices.

Objectives of the Study

 

The overall objectives of the study were to compare
selected personnel management practices in Michigan public schools to

the literature base pertinent to surveyed functions; determine the

 

1Roald Campbell and Russell Gregg, Administrative Behavior
in Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1557), p. 222.

 

current status of selected personnel management practices and make
recommendations for possible implementation by school districts.
As a means of approaching the study, recognition was given
to the major areas of personnel management which have been identified
by a number of authorities as integral to the effective functioning
of the process. Castetter refers to the scope of the personnel
management area within the public school system.
Activities such as the fellowing are generally included in
the personnel operating processes: manpower planning, recruitment,
selection, compensation, induction, development, appraisal,
security, maintaining and improving personnel services, and
organizational democracy.
French indicates that the fellowing roles are probably typical of the
personnel department in a majority of current organizations:

1) Task Specialization or job design

2) Staffing

3) Evaluation or appraisal

4) Compensation

5) Labor relations and collective bargaining

6) Organizational justice

7) Training and development

8) Organizational development2

However, in the interests of directly relating this study to

the unique character of personnel management in public education; to
conduct a more manageable study; and to provide a more feasible
literature documentation for the project, it was proposed to delimit
the survey of personnel management practices to two major topics:

1. Teacher evaluation programs

2. Professional growth programs

 

1Castetter, 9p: cit., p. 23.

2French, pp: cit., p. 606.

10

Compensation practices which may be directly affected by teacher
evaluation and professional growth programs, were also included in
the study. Further, data were requested only for programs related to
staff members having teacher certification, but excluding adminis-
trative personnel.

These two topics taken individually or collectively, comprise
an important part of the educational personnel management process.
Each has a considerable body of research documentation and theory
background to warrant inclusion in the study. Interaction between
the areas is both desired and complementary. Davis strongly expresses
the relationship:

A professional development undertaking which is based on

anything other than identified skill needs is quite liable to

be useless and is a highly questionable expenditure. By the

same token, a comprehensive evaluation program for identifying

Staff needs without the availability of a means of correcting

such deficiencies is equally useless.1
Appropriate also to these subjects are the following comments: Henry
rather dramatically States one relatively recent aspect of evaluation,
illustrating the movement towards Specific teaching objectives with an
accompanying de-emphasis upon the affective dimension.

The day may come when an observer may say something like this:
you are a dynamic teacher and the students are full of goodwill
and believe in you; you are a dedicated teacher as in the prime of
Miss Jean Brodie, and undoubtedly your teaching affects eternity,
as Mark Van Doren claims fer teaching: but since your rate of
questioning is three questions a minute and your questions are at

a low cognitive level, and very few extended student reSponses are
elicited, and your reactions do not incorporate student reSponse

 

1Davis, pp: cit., p. 71.

11

into the discussion, and you have no variety in your teaching
cycles, and you Spend only a few minutes on too many t0pics--
you are an inferior teacher.1

Referring to employee development through in-service education, Turner
makes some cogent observations:

The plan which eventually develops is not his [supervisor];
it belongs to the entire district. It contains something of
worth for all groups and is recognized as being their program.
Through his leadership, teachers are free to consider alterna-
tive activities and to select those which seem most promising
to them at that time. To the extent that the supervisor is
successful in creating the interest and providing the necessities
to carry out the various projects, he will be involved in a
dynamic, productive in-service program, one that is demanded,
not deplored, by the teachers of the district. The end product
will be an improved level of quality instruction.

Pppulation and Sample

 

Invitations to participate in the study were extended to the
total of 132 Michigan K-12 public school districts within the inter-
mediate school districts of Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb,
Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne. The total number of districts
were then separated into Six categories by student population:

1) Up to 2,000

2) 2,001 to 5,000

3) 5,001 to 10,000

4) 10,001 to 20,000

5) 20,001 to include all districts except Detroit

6) Detroit

 

1G. H. Henry, "Style of Teaching and Teacher Evaluation,
Videotape Analysis," Epglish Journal, LIX (October, 1970), 927.

 

2H. E. Turner, "Improved In-Service, A Challenge for Super-
visors," Clearing_House, XLV (October, 1970), 119.

 

12

A total of sixteen personal interviews were conducted either
with the superintendent or his designate(s), representing three from
each population category, in addition to the city of Detroit.

The assistance of the Michigan State University research

staff was used in the refinement of procedures and analysis of data.

Limitations of the Study

 

l. The study was restricted to two functions of the personnel

management process.

2. Educational organizations were selected Michigan public

schools offering K—12 programs.

3. Data were requested only for programs related to staff
members having teacher certification but excluding adminis-

trators.

4. Participating schools districts represented approximately
20 per cent of the total number of K-12 public school

districts in the state of Michigan.

5. Public school districts were located in the intermediate
School districts of Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb,

Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne.

Procedures

 

This study was a descriptive survey comparing two functions
of personnel management practices with the existing literature base.
The major purpose of descriptive research is to tell "what is,"
which is in accord with the problem as previously stated. Some of

the attributes of descriptive studies are related by Borg:

1)
2)
3)
4)

13

Determine the current state of the science.
Provide a starting point for further research.
Source of valuable knowledge about human behavior.
May be used in education planning.

The collection of data was accomplished by means of mailed ques-

tionnaires and personal interviews.

Steps followed in the conduct of the study were:

Construction of questionnaire fer the gathering of data.

Pilot study of questionnaire and procedures involving six

public school districts from Kent County, Michigan.

Revision of procedures and questionnaire on the basis of

the pilot study.

Mailing of questionnaires with cover letters requesting parti-

cipation in the study.

Conduct of interviews with districts randomly selected from

respective student population categories.

Follow-up letters mailed and/or telephone calls made to

non-respondents.
Organization of data.
Analysis of data.

Written results of study.

 

1Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research,

 

An Introduction (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971).

 

14

Definition of Terms

 

Appraisal.--Consideration of evidence in the light of value
standards and in terms of the particular situation and the goals which
the group or individual is striving to attain.1 (Also see evalua-

tion.)

Certificated teacher.--A teacher who has been licensed to

 

teach by the agency legally authorized by the state to grant such a

license.2

Evaluation.——Consideration of evidence in the light of value

 

standards and in terms of the particular situation and the goals
which the group or individual is striving to attain.3 (Also see

appraisal.)

Inservice education.--The term inservice education is used

 

by educators to denote efforts of administrative and supervisory
officials to promote by appropriate means the professional growth
and development of professional personnel.4

Inservice education includes all those planned staff develop-
ment programs which are designed to bring about instructional improve-

ment in schools. Inservice education is aimed at individuals through

 

lCarter v. Good, Dictionary of Education (2nd ed.; New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 209.

 

2Ibid., p. 82. 3Ibid., p. 82.

4Ibid., p. 288.

15

group activities and takes place in the organizational context in

which the individuals carry out their tasks.1

K-12 Public School District.--A legally constituted body
established by the state encompassing both elementary and secondary
grades supported by tax revenues, administered by public officials

and open to all.

Merit rating:--An evaluation of the effectiveness of teach-

 

ing, supervision or administration, based on a definite scale or

collected items accepted as legitimate measures fer such purposes.2

Personnel administration.--The task of handling the problems

 

arising from the varied relationships of the school staff, such as
the appointing, supervising and dismissing of teachers, principals

and other employees of a school system.3

Professionalgrowth.--Increase in subject-matter knowledge,

 

teaching skill and efficiency, and insight into educational problems,

O 0 I C 4
w1th a concom1tant 1ncrease 1n success as a teacher.

Staff development.--A function of school operation usually

 

assigned as a responsibility of the instruction department. Implicit

is the recognition of current competencies and needs of the

 

1E. W. Bessent et a1. Designs fer In-service Education

(Austin: University of Texas, Research and Deve10pment Center fer
Teacher Education, 1967), p. 5.

 

 

2 3

Good, pp: cit., p. 439. Ibid., p. 14.

4Ibid., p. 193.

16

instructional staff. The obligation also exists to coordinate the
establishment and operation of developmental programs designed to
upgrade and maintain necessary instructional skills consistent with

school district goals.

Organization of the Study

 

This thesis is embodied in five chapters. II

Chapter I, Introduction

 

A discussion of the problem to be studied, the purposes,

 

significance and objectives of the study are included. The pro-
cedures fellowed, surveyed populations, study limitations, and

definition of terms are presented.

Chapter IIL Review of the Literature

 

A review of personnel management importance, development and
relationship to the educational sector is incorporated. Examination
of the integrative nature of teacher evaluation and professional growth
programs were explored as well as factors tending to enhance or retard

implementation of these procedures.

Chapter III, Depign of the Study

 

The type of study, instrumentation, data collection and

tabulation as well as statistical procedures are described.

Chapter IV, Analysis of the Data
Detailed commentary supplemented by tables and graphs reviews
the current status of teacher evaluation and professional growth pro-

grams in reporting Michigan public schools.

17

Chapter V, Summary, Discussion,
ConcluSions, and Recommendations
for School Districts and

Future Research’

 

 

 

 

The major findings of the study are reviewed, implications
discussed, and recommendations made for the teacher evaluation and
professional growth prOgrams in dual areas of possible future re-

search and field implementations.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

An Overview

 

The field of personnel management incorporates a number of
functions which collectively become significant factors in helping to
determine ultimate employee success in his assigned organizational
position. This study delimits the areas of personnel management to
professional Staff evaluation and professional growth programs. The
inclusion of these two functions has particular purpose because of
the complementary and integrative nature of each. The position of the
New Jersey Education Association suggests:

Evaluation of teachers has two purposes. It is a basis for

rehiring and firing; this is job—oriented evaluation. It is

also a basis for staff development. This is career-oriented
evaluation.1

A Brief Review of Personnel
Management Development

 

 

The field of personnel management has its origins in the
Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, thereby begin-

ning the transition from an agrarian based economy to one of

 

1Ohio Education Association, Interface on Learnin , Teacher
Evaluation (Columbus, Ohio: Instructional Services DiviS1on, 1970),
p. 104.

 

18

19

industrialization. As the age of Specialization emerged, some
impetus was given to the development of personnel management, but
prior to 1900, most of the employment functions were accomplished by
line personnel. Eilbirt states:

It is doubtful that any personnel or industrial relations
departments existed at the end of the century.1

As a result, the primary objectives of organizations of that era were
aimed at the manipulation of resources, materials and people, in
order to produce goods for a profit, with the welfare of the indi-
vidual relegated to a secondary concern.

The scientific management movement of the late 1800's,
principally advocated by Frederick W. Taylor, saw management as
primarily concerned with the routinization of work tasks, for the
purpose of increasing efficiency. Careful planning and systematic
observation of the components of the performed job were essential to
the fulfillment of the scientific management principles. Employees
were not expected to operate at any level other than to closely
follow supervisory-mandated work rules and regulations. Further, the
social interaction of work groups was not believed to have any
particular value to efficient job perfOrmance. Indeed, scientific
management generally reflected a low opinion of the individual
worker's capabilities and motivation. Contemporaries of Taylor in-
cluded Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and Henry Gantt, whose work in
time studies, efficient job motion and scheduling respectively, also

were influential in the movement.

 

1Henry Eilbirt, "The Development of Personnel Management in
the United States," Business History Review, XXXIII, No. 3 (Autumn,
1959), 346.

 

20

The establishment of the Civil Service Commission by the
Pendleton Act of 1883 further developed the area of personnel
management:

The major impact of the Act was to foster employee's
appointment progression in federal service on the basis of
merit. A secondary result over the years has been the stimu-
lation of prOgressive personnel policies and practices in
governmental agencies, including state governments with a
resulting impact on business and industrial organizations.

So-called "welfare activities" were promoted by many firms
in the early 1900's, providing for health facilities, lunch rooms,
recreational programs and financial assistance in some cases. These
programs were supervised by "secretaries" who served as a point of
contact between the company and its employees.

The executive assistant, called a social or welfare
secretary in 1900 was thus a rudimentary forerunner of the
modern personnel administrator.2

Employment management departments came into being around the
time of World War I, giving attention to recruitment, selection,
placement and record-keeping functions.

In the 1920's and 1930's, primarily through the efforts of
some personnel administrators in the private sector and certain social
scientists, the managerial perception of the worker began to depart
from that of the traditional approach of the Taylor school. In this
concept, commonly referred to as the "human relations model," recog-

nition was extended to the worker's personal needs, desires and wishes

to be a useful part of the organization. However, it should be noted:

 

1French, op: cit., p. 21. inlbirt, op: cit., p. 350.

21
The ultimate goal, however, is still, as in the tradi-
tional model, compliance with the manager's directives.

In this respect, the traditional and human relations models are
Similar. The worker is not considered to be an integral part of
organizational goal-setting and accomplishment. Instead, it was
believed that simply meeting the worker's needs would create a better
work climate of employee participation. IL_

The further transition from the human relations leadership

model to that of human resources is of relatively recent origin, dating

 

——-4

from the early 1960's. As the term implies, this leadership model EH
views employees as having the ability to be self-directive, thereby
constructively contributing to organization decision-making. Leaders
are urged to share information with employees and to actively promote
worker participation in decision-making. Moreover, the objectives of
the leader in the human resource model are much broader than in either
the traditional or human relations approaches.
However, the primary purpose of these policies is not to

increase morale and satisfaction as in the human relations

model. Rather, the purpose of these policies--is to improve

directly the total decision-making and control efficiency of

the organization.
The significance of decision-making at all levels of the organizational

hierarchy should not be minimized with the human resources concept.

As a correlate, it is suggested that employee satisfaction can result

 

1Paul Pigors et al., Mana ement of Human Resources (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 197 , p. 48.

2Ibid., pp. 48-49.

22

from this leadership setting whereby the employee perceives himself
as exercising meaningful direction and control of his work responsi-
bility.

Much of the current literature in personnel management, refers
to "participatory" involvement of employees in organizational goal-
setting and subsequent employee responsibility for meeting mutually
established objectives. By so doing, employee need for self-
fulfillment and ego reinforcement is considered. Further, it is hoped
through the mutual establishment of objectives, the employee will be
able to relate his personal goals to those of the organization. As
formulated by Douglas McGregor, human capacity for self-control is
important:

In this lies the only fruitful opportunity for industrial
management to realize the full potential represented by pro-
fessional resources.1

The point is reaffirmed by McGregor when he states:

Under proper conditions, these results provide encouragement
to people to direct their creative energies toward organizational
objectives, give them some voice in decisions that affect them,
provide significant Opportunities for the satisfaction of
social and egoistic needs.

It is of interest that some reports are now becoming available

which place the prime emphasis upon the nature of the work to be per-

formed as the determinant for the pattern of organization. Morse

 

1Stanley Sloan and Alton Johnson, "New Conduct of Personnel
Appraisal," Harvard Business Review, XLVIII, No. 6 (November-
December, 1968), 16.

2Pigors, op. git}, p. 13.

 

23

described a study which attempted to determine employee perceived
climate of organizations which differed markedly in structure;
specialized versus research-oriented; and in terms of financial
success; profit or loss. Morse concluded that employee sense of
competence was extremely important to organizational climate, and
that competence was reinforced by good performance. In Morse's
opinion, employee sense of competence was not necessarily related to
a participative leadership approach, but rather that satisfactory
employee climate was due to employee understanding of organizational
goals and objectives. Morse concluded:

The appropriate pattern of organization is contingent
on the nature of the work to be done and the particular needs
of the people involved.1

Therefore organizations should seek a:

Fit not only between organization and the task, but
between the task and people, and between people and the
organ1zat1on.

The role of the supervisor or manager is considered by
many authorities to be vitally important to the success of the
enterprise:

The manager is the key to the whole process.3 Or as
Gruenfeld states:

More effective supervisors appreciate the utility of

formal appraisals as potentially capable of contributing to
the improvement of subordinate's performance, of increasing

 

1John J. Morse and Jay W. Lorsch, "Beyond Theory Y,"
Harvard Business Review, XLVIII (May, 1970), 68.

2Ibid.

 

3Sloan and Johnson, op: cit., p. 18.

24

mutual understanding, and of providing opportunities to

counsel with subordinates to improve their shortcomings.
Sloan and Johnson in discussing the field of personnel appraisal,
postulate that basic factors affecting occupational growth can be
separated into three main categories:

1) The work performed by the employee.

2) Climate of the situation: manager's style; organization

pressures; incentives for improvement. 2
3) Employees own abilities, needs, desires and interests.

The response of the supervisor is considered to be an enhancing or
inhibiting factor regarding employee development. As Gruenfeld
observes:

Supervisors relatively high in supervisory quality,
initiative, self-assurance, consideration, structure and inter-
personal trust are more favorably inclined toward the develop-
ment of their subordinates than those sugervisors who are
relatively low in these characteristics.

Again, reflected in Pigors concerning the human resources model:

Superiors following this model would not only encourage
their subordinates to participate in decision-making, but would
allow them broad latitude to shape and modify their own jobs
and to exercise control over their own behavior.

The foregoing has been oriented to the business and indus—

trial areas. Primarily, this reflects the leadership role of these

 

1LeOpold W. Gruenfeld and Peter Weissenberg, "Supervisory
Characteristics and Attitudes Toward Performance Appraisals,"
Personnel Psychologz, XIX (Summer, 1966), 149.

2Sloan and Johnson, op: cit., p. 19.

3Gruenfeld and Weissenberg, op: £15,, p. 150.

4Pigors, pp: 213,, p. 49.

25

sectors in the field of personnel management. With regard to educa-
tional personnel management, Moore and Walters succinctly observed:

A survey of the literature such as that made by the authors
in the preparation of this material has revealed the lack of
organized material in education and for the most part, incomplete,
if not wholly inadequate prOgrams existing in the typical school
system. Clear and well-defined policies embracing the entire
field are rare. The survey has also revealed that the schools
are generally behind business, industry and civil service in
many of their practices.

Davis reports a similar situation in 1960 with 136 public school
districts of an approximate 40,000 nationwide, indicating the employ-
ment of a personnel administrator. Davis is direct when he comments:

The lack of an adequate professional personnel program is
the most critical problem facing American schools.2

Foucar, in his doctoral dissertation of 1970, found that:
Some 70% of today's educational budget is Spent for

professional personnel salaries, but a fraction of 1% is

spent for personnel administration.3
Some change in emphasis has been noted, particularly in those states
where collective bargaining laws have been enacted encompassing the
public sector. Personnel practices are subject to the negotiation
process, thereby creating the need for public personnel administra—

tion to become more formalized. Some school districts in the state

of Michigan, for example, have established administrative positions

 

1Harold Moore and Newell B. Walters, Personnel Administration
in Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955).

 

 

2Davis and Nickerson, op: cit., p. 106.

3Kenneth A. Foucar, "Comparison of Industrial and Educational
Professional Personnel Policies and Practices" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Arizona State University, 1970).

26

which incorporate the collective bargaining process into the personnel
management responsibility. It would appear that the implications of
collective bargining are sufficiently important to cause school
districts to allocate financial resources in a type of self-defense

mechanism.

Recent Personnel Management Developments
More recently, additional dimensions have emerged, incor-
porating the concept of corporate social responsibility, or the
belief that organizational goals and employee understanding of those
goals do have a profbund effect on the attainment of organizational
objectives. Greater emphasis is now given to the part which be-
havioral sciences can play in the accommodation of organizational to
individual goals. Organization theory emphasizing the interrelation
and interdependency of all components of an institution is probably
the most current development in the field of personnel management.
Relgtionships Between Pro ams of Teacher
Evaluation and Profess1ona1 Growth
The selection of teacher evaluation and professional growth
programs as a combined area for study, results from the numerous and
integral relationships between the two personnel management func-

tions. The Ohio Education Association in its report, Interface on

 

Learning-Teacher Evaluation, states:

Appraisal can be used as a foundation for the professional
development of the teaching staff. It can not only provide a
critique of a teacher's performance, but also guide actions

27

to improve it. Appraisal can thus be positive and progressive,

rather than negative and static.
In view of current discussion regarding teacher accountability for
classroom performance and the reluctance of teacher organizations to
be judged against vague and subjective standards, the question of
evaluative purposes has even greater pertinence. The comment is made
in the report of the Battelle Memorial Institute that:

If appraisal is used diagnostically in assisting teachers
in their professional development, it could also go a long way
toward solving the fundamental controversy over appraisal that
exists between teachers and school management.2

Indeed, it could be said that teacher appraisal programs have within
their purview the responsibility for the professional development of
the individual. Therefore, a foremost purpose of meaningful, prag-
matic and realistic evaluation programs should be to suggest appro-
priate, convenient and timely ways in which employees are encouraged
to perform their tasks more satisfactorily. This concept is expressed
effectively by Moore and walters in their premise that evaluation is

a part of the school program, not an end product.

Evaluation must be an integral part of the school program
for improving the educational process. True evaluation is
permeated with the idea of improvement and growth through the
analysis of strength and weaknesses of the person evaluated.3

Similarly, Barr expresses a comparable observation in a somewhat

different manner:

 

thio Education Association, op: cit., p. 5.

2Ibid., p. 76.

3Moore and Walters, op: cit., p. 346.

28

. . . if one expects school administrators to set an example

in the humane management of its personnel, their interests

must extend beyond hiring and firing teachers to helping them,

and to the more general development and conservation of

human resources.
In reference to the cooperative establishment of teaching objectives
and their subsequent relationship to the professional growth of
teachers, Moore and Walters advise:

It must be remembered that professional growth in the
accomplishment of these goals begins at the point which the
teachers have reached and goes on from there.

In summary, strong emphasis is given to the importance of the pro-
fessional growth component as integral to the overall usefulness of
the evaluation process. Consequently, persons charged with imple-
mentation of personnel management policies, are encouraged to be
cognizant of these relationships. Organization focus, whether in

education, business, industry or government is directed towards

procedures which complement each process.

Purposes of Teacher Evaluation

 

Review of the literature indicates rather general agreement
on some of the basic purposes of evaluation. For example, the area
of improved instructional programs and settings as a focus fer eval-
uation, is stressed by a number of references. In the 14th Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, key words appear

such as improvement, standard and efficiency:

 

Arvil S. Barr, Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and
Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness IMadison, Wisconsin: Dembar
Publications, Inc.,i961), p. 142.

 

 

2Moore and Walters, op, cit., p. 346.

29

A measuring scheme is necessary for the improvement of
teachers in service. (a) It would serve as a basis for self-
critiCism and self:improvement on the part of teachers; with
the standard before them, teachers need not wait till their
weaknesses are pointed out by supervisors. (b) Such a standard
is necessary if the supervisor's criticisms are to be complete
and definite and therefore properly helpful. (c) The super—
visor would not need to spend energy on all points but could
concentrate on those points where the measurement revealed
need for help. (d) The presence of a definite standard for
efficiency would itself be a spur to improvement by laying
emphasis on important points.

 

Morin in describing a more defensible plan for evaluating teachers,
established as one of his principles, the belief that "evaluation
procedures must be an inherent part of the total instructional
development scheme."2 Bolton reinforces the principle thus:

The reasons for establishing comprehensive and systematic
teacher evaluation procedures are to improve learning condi-
tions for children and to facilitate learning decisions.3

Redfern, speaking to the evaluation of teachers for tenure, suggests
the following purposes:
1) The assessment of the status and quality of teaching
performance.
2) Identification of those aspects of performance which are

below standard and need improvement. 4
3) Stimulation of the growth and development of the individual.

 

 

1Clifton A. Boyce, Methods for Measurin Teacher Efficienc ,
Fourteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa-
tion, Part 11 (Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Co.,
1915), p. 9.

2Lloyd H. Morin, A Feasible Scheme for the Evaluation of

Instructors (Los Angeles: University of CaIifbrnia, August,
1958), p. 9.

 

3Dale 5. Bolton, Selection and Evaluation of Teachers: An

Interpretive Study of Research'andiDevelopment (Seattle: univer§ity
Efflwashington, September,I§70), p. 31.

4George B. Redfern, How to Appraise Teacher PerfOrmance
(Columbus, Ohio: School Management Institute, Inc., 1963), p. 25.

30

The report of the National Center for Educational Communication,
Teacher Evaluation, Prop 21, identifies purposes of teacher evaluation
as fellows:

1) To improve teaching .

2) To reward superior performance.

3) To supply infbrmation for modifying assignments.

4) To protect individuals or organizations in legal matters.

5) To validate selection processes.

6) To provide a basis fer planning individual growth and
development. '

Likewise, Voege comments: "The primary goal for the evaluation of
teachers should be the improvement of instruction."2 Lucio states
it slightly differently when he says:

The twofold nature of assessment is kept clearly in mind:
(1) essentially to help in the improvement of Skills; but also
(2) to evaluate the accomplishment of the requisite, agreed-
upon purposes of the school. The careful review of accomplish-
ment is the reSponsibility of the supervisor.

Heald and Moore identify the following as a rationale fer teacher
evaluation:

1) Society expects it to be done.

2) Communities have the economic right to demand that an
adequate job of evaluating the effectiveness of teachers
be done on a periodic basis.

3) Behavior is related to expectation.

 

1National Center for Educational Communication, Teacher
Evaluationngrep 21 (Washington, D.C., January, 1971), p. l.

 

2Richard B. Voege, Procedures for Evaluatin ng Classroom
Teachers in Certain School Distr1cts in the State of Washin ton
Tgeattle, wash.: School Infermation and Research Serv1ce, 1975),

p. l.

 

 

3William H. Lucio and John D. McNeil, Supervision: A
S. thesis of Thought and Action (New York. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
). p 216

 

 

31

4) Improvement of instruction.

5) To make a personnel decision concerning promotion, dismissal,
the granting of tenure, or the awarding of additional salary
increments.

It is noteworthy that Heald and Moore Specify the improvement of in-
struction as: "seems to be the most important."2 Ellinger, in his
1968 study of procedures used in the evaluation of professional
school personnel suggested:

The main purpose of the teacher evaluation program should be
to develop more effective teaching. The granting of tenure and
the identification of professional leadership will be natural
by-products.3

Davis is more Specific when he envisions evaluation as a measuring
device to determine attainment of educational goals:

The fundamental purpose of evaluation in any organization is
to identify those behaviors which tend to enhance or inhibit
progress of the organization toward achievement of its
objectives.4

In amplifying this observation, Davis coments:

The central core around which the whole evaluation program

must revolve is the definitive measurement of changps in pupil

behavior. Because the central purpose (andisole reason for
existence) of the school is the education (changing behavior) of

 

 

1James E. Heald and Samuel A. Moore, The Teacher and Adminis-
trator Relationships in School Systems (New York: iThe Macmillan
Company, 1938), pp. ISBLS9.

 

 

2Ibid., p. 159.

3William B. Ellinger, "A Study of the Procedures Used to
Evaluate Professional School Personnel in the Public Schools of the
State of Maryland" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington
University, 1968).

4Davis and Nickerson, op: cit., p. 64.

32

those who attend, the only legitimate measure of success or
failure of the school is the degree to which pupil behaviors are
changed in desirable ways.1

The Ohio Education Association in its publication Interface on

 

Learning-~Teacher Evaluation, States:
The point is that evaluations should have as their
predominate purpose:
The professional improvement of the teacher and teaching,
and,
the assistance of the administration in an affirmative contri-
bution to that improvement.2
The 1971 survey of teacher evaluation practices conducted by the
Educational Research Service solicited responses from all school
districts enrolling 25,000 or more pupils. In answer to the question
asking the purposes of evaluation, responses from 109 districts were

recorded as follows:

1) To stimulate improvement of teaching performance. 102
2) To decide on reappointment of probationary

teachers. 94
3) To recommend probationary teachers fer

permanent status. 90
4) To establish evidence where dismissal from

service is an issue. 89
5) To select teachers for promotion. 64
6) To decide on reappointment of permanent teachers. 63
7) To qualify teachers for regular salary increments. l6
8) To qualify teachers for longevity pay increments. . 4

9) To qualify teachers for acceleration on
salary schedule.
10) To establish qualifications for merit pay.3

NM

 

11bid., p. 65.

2Ohio Education Association, op: cit., p. 94.

3National Education Association, Evaluatin Teachin Per-
formance, Circular No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, ERS Information Aid, February, 1972), pp. 1-2.

33

Moore and Walters categorize the purposes of teacher
evaluation into two principal divisions:

The administrative aspects of this problem are those having
to do with selection, promotion, transfer, or dismissal of the
educational staff, the adjustment of salaries, the appraisal of
teaching as a part of the general Operation of the school
system, and similar purposes that pertain to the management and
direction of the school system.

The supervisory aspects of appraising or recognizing
teaching efficiency are concerned especially with the improvement
of teaching or with the evaluation of the supervisory program
itself.

Barr, in 1931, reflected upon a departure from the traditional
role of the supervisor:

Recently, the idea has grown up that supervisors should not
be more trainers of teachers, but instructional experts
reSponsible for the general improvement of instruction in their
fields of Specialization.

It is significant to note that some 40 years later, the problem of
implementing Barr's concept, is still very much in evidence.

The Hawaii Department of Education while cognizant of the
value of employment decisions, nevertheless, intimates that the
evaluation process embodies much more.

That observations and appraisals provide a sound basis fer
administrative decisions on continued employment is a resulting
value, but should not be the basic purpose. It is generally
recognized that a procedure for hiring teachers and merely

watching to see whether or not they succeed is an inefficient,
uneconomical, and unethical method of personnel administration.3

 

1Moore and Walters, op: cit., p. 323.

2A. S. Barr and William H. Burton, An Introduction to the

Scientific Stud of Classroom Supervision (New York: DI Appleton
and Company, 1 31).

 

 

3National Education Association, Evaluating TegchingPer-
formance, Circular No. 3 (Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, ERS Infermation Aid, January, 1969), p. 3.

34

The industrial or business sector also has identified pur-
poses of evaluation although the term performance appraisal is more

prevalent. Paul comments regarding overall objectives of performance

appraisal:

1) Make management's personnel decisions more defensible by
systematic collection of data.
2) Stimulate productivity.
a) By eliminating inefficient members.
b) By improving performance. 1
3) Improve morale which may affect productivity.

Whitehill is also aware of the many facets incorporated into the

evaluation of employees:

Employee rating is a multi-purpose management tool. Regular
rating lets workers know from time to time how they are doing.
Furthermore, it serves to identify promotable employees, may be
used in wage and salary administration, is helpful in deter-
mining training needs, and contributes in many other ways to the
most effective matching of men and jobs. There is a promising
trend among employers at the present time toward using the
results of rating programs more and more as an aid in fostering
better supervisor—employee relationships, rather than as a
basis for disciplinary action.

Another business-oriented notation comes from Ecker:

The main purpose of employee evaluation is to motivate
peOple to undertake self-improvement programs. The worker
must agree that certain weaknesses exist, and that a definite
program of self-improvement has to be completed in order to
overcome the weaknesses. This is the goal of positive
employee evaluation.3

 

1Robert J. Paul, "Employee Performance Appraisals: Some
Empirical Findings," Personnel Journal, XLVII, No. 2 (February,
1968), 109.

2Arthur M. Whitehill, Personpel Relations (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 47.

 

3Paul H. Ecker et al., Handbook for Supervisors (2nd ed.;

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 155.

35

The term merit rating appears in the business and industrial
literature as synonymous to evaluation or appraisal. This concept is
important to recOgnize because of the totally different connotation
ascribed to the term by the educational organizations. The National
Education Association, in its proceedings at the national convention
of 1968 adopted a resolution which illustrates the disparity in the
use of the phrase.

The Association further believes that use of subjective
methods of evaluating professional performance fer the purpose
of setting salaries has a deleterious effect on the educational
process. Plans which require such subjective judgments (commonly
known as merit ratings) should be avoided. American education
can be better served by continued progress in developing better
means of objective evaluation.1

Purposes of Professional Growth Progpams

Professional growth or inservice training programs are con-
cerned with staff at the orientation or inservice levels. This is
the context within which the discussion of professional growth pro-
gram purposes is presented.

The most prevalent rationale for professional growth programs
which consistently appears in the literature, states the need fer
improved instructional services which can be met through develop-
mental efforts to upgrade the teaching staff. In this regard, Borg

classifies the professional needs of teachers into three major areas

of instruction:

 

 

1National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedin s
of OneéHundredésiXth'Annual‘Meeting, Dallas, Texas, July 1-6, l§§8,
p. 523.

36

1) Curriculum content

2) Professional knowledge

3) Classroom skills1
To this already comprehensive list of responsibilities, other author-
ities have identified the possible varying instructional needs of
beginning and experienced teachers. Turner refers to this as the
"multi-faceted"2 approach to inservice programs. An understanding
of the differing status of teachers with regard to psychological
orientation, although included also is age, experience and prepara-
tion, is demonstrated by Dionne when he establishes five states of
growth applicable to teachers.

1) Managerial

2) Material-centered

3) Innovative

4) Analytical

5) Creative3
Inherent in this position is a hoped-for teacher movement from a
closely structured, teacher dominated type of operation to a teacher
posture of reSponsiveness to the individual encouraging considerable
freedom for exploration.

Moffit expresses a similar point of view in a discussion

related to the pressures fer confermity in our social system. The

challenge to education, in Moffit's opinion:

 

1Walter R. Borg et al., "The Mini—course: A New Tool for
the Education of Teachers,“'Education, XC (February, 1970), 232.

2Turner, op: cit., p. 119.

3Mel Johnson, Model Progpam for Teacher In-Service Trainin

Emphasizing the Affective Dimension (Arlington Heights, 111.: 1311
Grove ra n ng an Development Center, June, 1969), pp. 8, 9.

 

37

. not to conform but to encourage climates of growth in
which teachers may be different and seek the unusual without
fear or intimidation. Teacher behavior with students must not
be imitative but fresh and freedom-giving as it explores the
challenging and the unknown. The quality of in-service education
will largely determine the quality of teaching. Progress and
improvement will come if the schools are not typed but helped
to be unique.1

Reflected against the backdrop of today's technologically
dependent society, with its attendant demands for highly skilled
teaching staff, it is somewhat difficult to understand that in-
service needs existed for those teachers of the early 1900's. The
following illustrates considerable understanding of the problem:

The work of making good teachers must be carried forward
steadily because of the immaturity of teachers on entering
the profession, the unevenness of their preparation, the
singular lack of external stimulus connected with the practice
of the profession, the complex nature of the work that must
be intrusted to even the poorest teacher, the profound injury
that results when the work is badly done, the constant change
in methods and curriculum.2

If the publication date of 1908 was not known, one could readily
imagine a present-day comment:

Again, teaching, while it is a very conservative profession,
is yet rapidly changing both as to methods and as to subject-
matter. The teacher who was well equipped ten years ago is now
hopelessly out of date unless she has been constantly advancing
with the changes in method and in curriculum.3

 

1Moffit, op, git , p. 77.

Charles D. Lowrey, The Relation of Superintendents and
Principals to the Trainin and ProfessionaIImprovement of The Ir
Tddchers, Seventh Yeafboo of the National Society for the Study

of Education, Part I (Bloomington, Ill. : Public School Publishing
Co., 1908), p.64.

31bid., p. 28.

38

A note of caution is extended by Westby-Gibson concerning the
possible dangers in equating change with improvement. Her premise is
that change by itself has no value connotation. Therefore, inservice
programs Should be designed not simply to change educational prac-
tices, but to improve classroom instruction.

The experience of a beginning teacher in an urban situation
illustrates one of the potential hazards about which those responsible
for teacher orientation Should be aware.

One of the first sources of confusion in my new job dealt
with organizational structure.1

Moore and Walters, while c0gnizant of the role of orientation and
induction programs as a school district reSponSibility, place greater
stress on the factor of continuous teacher growth.

Changing demands and opportunities of society make it neces-
sary that each member of the profession add continually to his
knowledge, skill, and understanding. It is the function of the
inservice program to contribute to the growth of the teacher.2

Whitney demonstrates awareness of the need to assist teachers in
remaining knowledgeable regarding educational developments, although
the focus of his comments was directed at the role of the superin-
tendent in facilitating inservice training.

Our public school teachers are like other workers in that
they but begin the process of development during the period
given over Specifically to preparation. This deve10pment must

be continuous in order that approximate levels of skill may be
maintained while in service.3

 

1Wylie Crawford, "My First Year of Teaching," Todaz's
Education, XXXVI (February, 1971), 46.

2Moore and Walters, op, cit., p. 226.

3Frederick L. Whitney, The Growth of Teachers in Service
(New York: The Century Company, 1927), p. 22.

 

39

Morris included some areas of emphasis in professional growth
programs which are not typically included in descriptions of the
subject. Morris projects the value for a comprehensive orientation
to the local school and community. The importance of teacher recrea-
tion is stressed, accompanied with the plea for teachers to take
time for the enjoyment of life. Morris indicates that a combination
of these elements could assist teachers in more adequately coping
with everyday pressures Of life.

It is that conditioned response that enables the individual
to adjust to the demands of everyday life with his entire
personality under control.

Business and industrial organizations devote considerable
resources to the development of employees.. In the context of this
study, references are made to developmental programs aimed at those
individuals possessing advanced education or highly Specialized
skills. Gould refers to the use of the employee interview and the
purposes it can serve in the self-development Of employees. In
Gould's Opinion, employees must participate in self-appraisal and
subsequent establishment of personal goals. Some factors identified
by Gould as encouraging self-development are:

1) No development or growth occurs without change.

2) NO lasting change occurs except from within the individual.
3) No change results unless some action occurs.2

 

1Russell J. Morris, "Why an Inservice Education Program?"
Bulletin of the National Association Of Secondary School Principals,

WW, 0. 3 February,W5

 

 

2M. I. Could, "Counseling for Self-Development," Personnel
Journal, XLIX (March, 1970), 226-34.

40

French, in a discussion related to the importance of programs con-
cerned with management and develOpment of professional employees
specifies four background reasons:
1) Intensified competition in business.
2) Werk force shifting to higher ratio of professional to
other employees.
3) Difficulty in retaining the keenest minds.
4) Job standards and measures of performance less easily
established.1 .
An additional coment should be made regarding item 3 above. Despite
the currency of French's book, the supply of professionals, parti-
cularly in the sciences, now exceeds the number of positions available.

AS a result, mobility of this group is more restricted than in the

late 1960's.

Factors Affecting the Teacher Evaluation Process

 

The determination and subsequent discussion Of factors which
are significant in assessing the effectiveness of teacher evaluation
programs demonstrate a variety of inter-linking relationships. It
is beyond the scOpe of this review to isolate any one factor as the

paramount influencing cause.

Administrative Position

 

The subject of teacher evaluation, by the very nature Of the
extremely complex and delicate human relationships which are inherent,
poses significant challenges tO school administrators. The dichotomy
existing between formal appraisal of performance and the professional

growth of the individual has been explored in the discussion of

 

1French, op, cit., pp. 519-20.

41

purposes. In view Of this, it is apparent that administrative concept
of the process will directly affect any evaluation procedure. Refer-
ence to the fine balance between encouragement of the employee to
perform better, and the possible negative overtones of evaluation
practices is made by Bolton:

Problems are encountered in teacher evaluation when there is
an emphasis on fault-finding rather than helping teachers, when
prejudice, bias and poor judgment are used in collecting and
analyzing information, and when communication is not open and
honest.

The report on Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21, has identified some
administrative behaviors which could adversely affect the success of
an evaluation program.

1) Lack knowledge of procedures.

2) Not wish to adversely affect people's careers.

3) Not want to damage relationships which could prevent growth.

4) Fail to communicate organizational goals and employee's
relation to them. .

5) Failure to understand relationship between evaluating others
and the evaluator's purposes. 2

6) Be unable to organize time to conduct adequate observations.

Associated with the foregoing, Rose reiterates the importance of
administrative competency:

NO matter how well selected the criteria, no matter how

adequate the procedures, if the persons fulfilling the eval-

uative role are not professionally competent, the whole struc-
ture will come tumbling down.3

 

1Bolton, pp, cit., p. 31.

2National Center for Educational Communication, op: cit.,
p. 4.

3Gale W. Rose, "The Effects of Administrative Evaluation,"

The National Elementary Principal, XLIII, No. 2 (November, 1963), 51.

42

Stennock advocates the use of the "client-oriented" evaluation. Incum-
bent to this procedure is an acceptance on the administrator's part
that evaluation is a cooperative process involving an obligation to be
both Objective and constructive. Stennock further states some other
conditions which are requisites to success in the client—oriented
process:

The individual evaluated must be convinced that:

l) he is not perfect.

2) the evaluation can be a valid method of achieving
improvement in performance; that his evaluators are not
just "out to get" him.

3) the evaluators are competent to judge him in certain
areas, e.g., interactions, relationships and other areas
in which the evaluator and evaluatee come into direct
contact.1

Ecker Speaks to the necessity for managers to genuinely accept an
evaluation program.

An evaluation program must have the whole-hearted support Of

top management and every member of the management team.

Teacher Organization Position

 

The reactions of teacher organizations to the area of evalua-
tion are significant factors in the development of any appraisal
system. Particularly, is this so where personnel policies may be
governed by master contract provisions. The National Education
Association position places considerable emphasis on objective

systems of evaluation.

 

1National Education Association, The Eggluatee Evaluates the
Evaluator, Circular No. S (Washington, D.C.: ERS InfOrmation Aid,
1975;, pp. 3-4.

 

2Ecker, _p. c_i_t., p. 149.

43

The National Education Association believes that it is a major
responsibility of educators to participate in the evaluation of
the Quality of their services. To enable educators to meet this
reSponSibility more effectively, the Association calls for con-
tinued research and experimentation to develop means of Objective
evaluation of the performance of all educators, including
identification of (a) factors that determine professional compe-
tence; (b) factors that determine the effectiveness of competent
professionals; (c) methods of evaluating effective professional
service; and (d) methods of recognizing effective professional
service through self-realization, personal status and salary.1

David Selden, when president of the American Federation of Teachers,
indicated some reservations about teacher evaluation in general.

If evaluation is necessary, it should be done by a team
analogous to the North Central Association.

With regard to frequency of evaluation, Selden commented:

Evaluations would b3 performed every five years, at the
request of the teacher.

The Ohio Education Association, while recognizing that:

The appraisal of teachers and of teaching competence is a
technical function, but one that cannot be shunned.4

demonstrates again its belief that evaluation:

. . . should be based on the premise of assisting the
individual staff member in becoming a better teacher.

 

 

1National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedin s of
One-Hundred-Ei hth Annual Meeting_(San FranciSco, Califbrnia, June SO-
July , 9 , (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
1970), p. 741.

 

2David Selden, Evaluate Teachers? Quest Paper Series, NO. 4
(Washington, D. C.: American Federation of Teachers,l969), p. 4.

3Ibid.

 

4Ohio Education Association, op: cit., p. 1.

5Ibid., foreword.

44

Teacher Perceptionsfiof Evaluation

Any process which possesses the number of opportunities for
varying degrees and types of interpersonal relationships, combined
with external forces operating in the public sector, should have very
clearly defined purposes and Objectives. Without understanding of the
purposes of evaluation, the way may be open for misunderstandings,
with subsequent tensions, anxieties and possible impaired performance
at all staff levels. Moore and Walters describe some results of
vaguely defined evaluation procedures:

Teachers tend to be apprehensive about ratings as such.
Teachers must be thoroughly acquainted with what is expected
of them and appraisal techniques to be used. Teachers who
understand the purposes and procedures of the appraisal program
may still, in the main, be quite willing to participate.
Security and emotional stability are important aSpectS of any
learning situation. Threats to security tend to make teachers
frustrated, apprehensive, and disorganized in their thinking.
The evaluation of teacher effectiveness must be based on whole-
some human relationships. Teachers must be helped to see that
evaluation is a source of aid.1

In the Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21 report, the observation
is made:

Morale cannot be high if staff members are fearful or
hostile.2

Likewise, if the evaluation purposes are understood to include only
a narrow range of punitive goals, the result may be:
. that if teachers view evaluation as an attempt to
eliminate the ineffective rather than to help all teachers

toward better and better performance, adverse effects could
outweigh the benefits of evaluation.3

 

1Moore and Walters, op: cit., p. 347.

2National Center for Educational Communication, op: cit.,
p. 21c.

3Ibid., p. 3.

45

The possible disparity between theory and actual practice
which may create or reinforce negative attitudes towards evaluation,
is illustrated by a 1968 study conducted by Litherland who surveyed
certain Michigan school districts regarding evaluation programs for
tenure status. Litherland found that:

l) The idealistic program for evaluating teachers for tenure
presented in the review of the literature was not practiced
by the six school districts studied intensively.

2) The sole purpose was to gather evidence to use when time
came to decide whether or not to recommend for tenure.1

By contrast, Rose reported that some evidence existed to indicate
that teachers welcome evaluation if certain factors were present.

1) A major focus on improving, rather than on inspectorial
fault-finding.

2) Principal takes the necessary time to collect adequate
infermation and to discuss it with the teacher.

3) Information produced is meaningful and useful to the
teacher.

Another example of a positive attitude towards evaluation, is expressed
by a teacher whose evaluation procedures include the opportunity for
self-evaluation. Mueller states:

I no longer have any fears about evaluation. On the con-
trary, I look forward to it. I am now able to look "inside"
my teaching methods, to ascertain whether or not my strategies
are consistent with my objectives. Also, the professional
opinions of the principal and teaching colleagues, in many
cases expressions of admiration, have added to my self-
confidence and self-respect.3

 

1Bennett H. Litherland, "An Analysis of Programs for Eval-

uating Teachers fer Tenure in Selected Michigan Public School
Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1968).

2Rose, pp, 215,, p. 51.

3Gene Mueller, "The Videotape for Self-Evaluation," Todax's

Education, LIX, NO. 1 (January, 1970), 39.

46

The concept of the administrator functioning in a supportive role
is expressed by Moore and Walters:
To be worth-while, the authors believe that evaluation must

be a guidance procedure, directed at helping the teacher help
himself teach children more effectively.

Goals and Objectives

 

Current demands for greater accountability on the part of the
educational establishment are real and must be reconciled. Consider-
able emphasis is now being given to the establishment of instructional
objectives and the responsibility for fulfillment. Bolton indicates:

However, recent emphases on accountability of teachers for

productivity have caused renewed interest in setting Specific
student accomplishment goals and attempting to attain them.
If the trend continues, it is quite likely to have a signi-
ficant impact on how teachers are evaluated.2
That teachers have a definite reSponSibility in the accountability
process is illustrated by this comment:

Accountability consists of providing evidence regarding the

degree of accomplishment of pre-specified goals and objectives.
Too often if a child does not learn, the child, society, or
some factor other than the teacher is blamed. Teachers must
develop a sense of responsibility for providing this evidence
as well as accomplishing goalS.3

Demonstration of the increased public interest in the evaluation

process is shown in the Educational Research Report of February,

1972. Aside from states having tenure procedures, a number of states

 

1Moore and Walters, op, cit., p. 349.

2Bolton, op: cit., p. 54.

3National Center for Educational Communication, op: cit.,

47

have adopted regulations governing evaluation procedures. For
example, California has recently enacted legislation which requires
local boards of education to develop objective evaluative guidelines
for use in determining the professional competency of all certified
personnel. The state of washington now requires the annual evaluation
of certificated employees. Further, Oregon stipulates that super-
intendents in districts having 500 or more pupils must evaluate
teachers at least on an annual basis.

The literature is replete with references concerning the
importance of evaluative programs that specify objectives and pur-
poses. The Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21 report associates definition
of purposes with positive perceptions of evaluation.

Since unknowns contribute to fear, evaluation programs which
have written Statements of purpose, that are clear, precise and
complete are more likely to produce a sound basis fer Open
communication and cooperative relationships than programs de-

signed around ambiguous or unwritten purposes.

Or as Davis stipulates:

Efforts to measure the competence of personnel (or anK other
resource allocation) must, then, be directly related to t e

particular objectives (behavioral changes) the teacher is
expected to accomplish, the characteristics of the pupils,

the teacher is expected to change and the resources (program),
techniques, tools and skills, the teacher has at his command
to bring about the described changes in the particular pupils
for whom he is responsible.2

Again, the Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21 report clearly enunciates
what Should be an obvious principle.

Formal evaluation should be analytic rather than comparative,
establishing whether the teacher reaches certain standards, but

 

1Ibid., p. 1.

2Davis, op: cit., p. 65.

48

avoiding attempts to compare the teacher with other teachers.
The emphasis should be on helping individuals improve their
contributions to the learning of school children, rather than
on taking punitive or controlling actions, making odious com-
parisons, or using questionable motivation techniques.

The preceding philosophical comments are not always implemented in
the field as illustrated by Thompson who reviewed evaluation and
authority in elementary and secondary schools.
Within the public school setting, many administrators lack
a coherent philosophy fer evaluation of professional employees
or for determining the relative importance of conflicting
norms. Further, administrators may fail to specify and commu-
nicate the criteria by which teachers will be evaluated; percep-
tions of organizational arrangements may differ among occupants
of different positions.2
Litherland, in his study of evaluation practices to determine tenure
status found:
Programs studied did nothing to improve actual teaching

performance.3

Problems of Measurement

 

The appraisal of teacher effectiveness has occupied the
attention of a multitude of researchers. Numerous studies have been
conducted which have dissected the various attributes of teachers in
attempts to isolate individual variables which may have effects on
teaching competency. This focus on teacher traits resulted in efforts

to create Specific instruments to measure teacher efficiency, with

 

1National Center for Educational Communication, op: cit.,

2June E. M. Thompson, "Evaluation and Authority in Elementary
and Secondary Schools: A Comparison of Teachers and Administrators"
(unpublished Ph.d. dissertation, StanfOrd University, 1971).

3Litherland, pp. 113'

49

less than satisfactory results or acceptance. Barr refers to the
developments which led to the widespread use of teacher rating
scales.

Because of the difficulties involved in the use of tests
of pupil progress as measures of changes in teaching efficiency,
because of the lack of valid, reliable and objective tests of
teaching ability with which to measure the efficiency of
teachers and because of the availability of rating scales and
the ease with which they can be administered, the rating method
of evaluating teaching efficiency and changes in teaching
efficiency have come into general use.

AS the report on Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21, summarized:
For years the purpose was to show how certain types of
teachers provide certain patterns of teaching. In order to
do this, it was necessary to observe the teacher many times to
determine what his stable patterns of teaching were. More
recently the emphasis has shifted to why do teachers vary their
behavior from one teaching episode to another and what are the
eOUcational consequences.2
Barr, in surveying research concerned with measurement and effective-
ness of teachers came to the conclusion:
Effectiveness does not reside in the teacher per se but in
the interrelationship among a number of vital aspects of a
learning-teaching situation and a teacher.3
Barr, in commenting about the uneven distribution of abilities, i.e.,
the same teacher may be high in some abilities and low in others,

with few multi-talented teachers, speculated:

 

1Barr, op, cit., p. 327.

2National Center fer Educational Communicatiorn op, cit.

38am, op. cit., p. 141.

50

From the data here summarized, it might be hypothesized that
a good teacher is one that has one or more special talents and
no deficiencies that the school, community, or administration
consider critical, with many intermediate abilities spread
more or less normally between these extremes.

A reservation is expressed by Weber concerning the status of research
to determine teacher effectiveness:

Research in the field of measurement of teacher effective-
ness has doubtless added much to our general understanding of
desirable teacher abilities, traits, and competencies, but the
professional worker should be warned that, as yet, no satis-
factory means of identification or definition of teaching
competencies has been devised.2

Bradley also comments regarding major areas of weakness in measuring

teacher competence:

1) DO not know how to define teacher competence.
2) Do not know how to identify it.3

Bradley identifies a number of factors which contribute to the
diversity of opinion regarding teacher competence:

l) Pupils

2) Public

3) Administrator

4) Institutions for teacher preparation

5) Professional groups4

It is of interest that the 1950 report of the Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development concerned with teacher

 

11bid., p. 140.

 

2Clarence A. weber, Leadership in Pergonnel Mana ement in
Public Schools (St. Louis, Mo.: Warren A. Green, Inc., 1975),
p. 118.

 

 

3Ruth Bradley et al., Measurin Teacher CompgtenceiResearch
Back rounds and Current Practice IBur11ngame: California Teachers
ASsoc1ation, 1964), p. 8.

 

4Ibid., pp. 8-10.

51

evaluation identified some types of evaluation instruments in use
at that time.

1) Rank order

2) Single mark for each teacher

3) Series of traits or aspects of teaching
4) Qualitative statement about each teacher
5) Selfeevaluation

6) Joint evaluation1

Some years later, Bradley suggested additional methods of determining
teacher effectiveness.
1) Measurement of pupil gains
2) Job analysis
3) Pupil ratings
4) Systematic observation techniques
5) Free observation with memoranda and anecdotal records2
The differences noted in the Bradley material and the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development viewpoint are
partially explained by the changing research base in the intervening
years. The Encyclopedia of Educational Research suggests:
In the past decade, research has begun to relate certain
teacher behaviors to specific consequences in the classroom
and in the academic achievement of the pupils. The shift has
been from subjective evaluations to a more objective counting
of teacher-pupil interactions, using more sophisticated
observations systems, and handling the larger quantities of
data by taking full advantage of computer capability.3
Anthony, in his study of classroom environmental variables and their

relation to academic achievement, reported:

 

1Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Better Than Ratin , a report prepared by the Commission on
Teacher Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 1950, pp. 67-70.

2Bradley, op, o35,, pp. 13-17.

3Robert L. Ebel, EnoyCIOpedia of Educational Research
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969), p. 1423.

52

The study suggests that student achievement can be affected
where teachers were ab e to manipulate a portion of the
classroom environment.

Sorenson has suggested that it may be desirable to develop separate
categories for non-instructional and instructional expectations. It
may also be feasible to create two evaluation files; one representing
the expectations of the evaluator; the other representing the
evaluatee.

Johnson and Bauch developed a model evaluation program which

incorporated two major sections reflecting the influence of current

research efforts,

I General Behaviors, Qualities and Competencies of Teachers
11 Specific Behaviors Performed by Teachers2

The use of rating scales is generally regarded as an in-
adequate evaluation tool. Appropriate to this, is the statement
by Lucio:

Evidence does not favor the use of rating indices as
inclusive measures of teaching effectiveness.3

Further, Queer observed:
The development of effective methods fer recording and

communicating such ratings continues to be a major problem
facing many school districts today.4

 

1Bobbie M. Anthony, "The Identification and Measurement of
Classroom Environmental Process Variables Related to Academic
Achievement" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,
1967).

2Charles E. Johnson and Jerold P. Bauch, Competency Based
Evaluation Guide, Georgia Educational Models (Athens: ThE’University
of Georg1a, l

3Lucio, 9p. 25,, p. 209.

4Glenn Queer, An Anal sis of Teacher Ratin Scales
(Pittsburgh, Pa.: Pitts urg Public Schools, 1969?, p. 2.

53

However, it is again pertinent to recognize an existing difference
between theory and practice.

In Queer's 1969 study, which surveyed the largest cities
in the United States, 50 of 53 respondents indicated the use of some
type of rating scale for evaluation purposes.

Some of the more commonly identified problem areas in measure-
ment of teacher effectiveness are concerned with the amount and
quality of subjectivity which enters the process. Bolton gives
some examples:

1) Bias or prejudice
2) Inconsistency of reaction to behavior
3) Subjective classification requiring high inferences
4) Teacher personality outside the classroom may influence
measurement of behaviors inside the classroom
5) Attempts to measure too many elements of classroom
situations
6) Tendency to continue prior viewpoint of person's performance
7) Consistent over or under evaluationsl
Barr was also very much aware of the possible subjective nature of
evaluation.

. where the criterion is an efficiency rating, each rater
has his own preferences, notwithstanding the fact that they
employed a common rating scale, and he tends to rate high those
teachers who have the characteristics that we associate with
excellence, and to rate low those teachers with an absence
of those characteristics.2

Torreson, in his study of evaluation procedures for non-tenure

teachers, commented on inadequate definition of the purpose of

evaluation.

 

1Bolton, _p, cit., p. 43.

2Barr, op, cit., p. 141.

54

The lack of well-defined criteria in non-tenure teacher
evaluation instruments increases the subjectivity of ratings
and contributes substantially to problems of communication.1
The report on Teacher Evaluation, Prep 21, proposes a set of
criteria which can be used to determine the adequacy of measuring
instruments.

1) Relevance and validity

2) Reliability

3) Fidelity

4) Ease of administration and scoring

5) Cost

6) Possible conflict with local traditions2
Lastly, Bolton reiterates the importance of the criterion of student
learning, a subject which, in his opinion, has been historically
avoided. Efforts will have to be made to cOpe with two extremely
important questions implicit in teacher evaluation programs:

1) How to measure long-term student growth?

2) How to control Situations so that growth is attributable
to a given teacher?3

Development of Evaluation Programs

 

The review of the literature Shows almost complete agreement
on the desirability of mutual responsibility for the evaluation

prOgram. Moore and Walters describe it in this way:

 

1Donald T. Torreson, "A Comparative Study of Evaluation
Procedures for Non—Tenure Teachers in Selected Urban School Systems"
(unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1967).

2National Center for Educational Communication, op, cit.,

sBolton, _p, cit., p. 170.

55

A complete understanding between teachers and administrators
of the purposes and criteria can be attained only through
cooperative planning of the appraisal program. The cooperative
study of existing and past practices, cooperative consideration
of various approaches to the problem, and discussion of methods
and techniques that might be used in the appraisal process by
those concerned are all parts of the cooperative planning so
necessarg to the successful develOpment of an evaluation
program.

Bolton enlarges the components instrumental in the planning of
evaluation procedures.

Evaluation procedures are most effective when they are
cooperatively planned by teachers and administrators who
receive assistance from specialists, consultants, parents
and students. All personnel involved should understand the
purposes of evaluation, the nature of the procedures, and the
roles of the various people involved.2

Torreson sees some multiple values for joint development of evalua-
tion procedures.

The involvement of teachers, supervisors, and administrators
in the development and appraisal of teacher evaluation pro-
grams will improve communication and will likely reduce the
pressures from teacher organizations to negotiate rather than
to cooperatively develop procedures.3

Heald and Moore envision reSponSibility fer teacher evaluation
passing from the administrative sector to the teachers themselves
if teacher organizations are successful in that movement.

As a result more enlightened state organizations of teachers
have passed professional practices acts. In essence, these
acts are attempts by the teachers to place much of the
appraisal of professional behaviors within the area of
responsibility encompassed by the teachers themselves. If
successful, teachers will move yet another step closer to the

 

1Moore and Walters, op, oit,, p. 347.

2Bolton, op, cit., p. 31. 3Torreson,_op. cit.

56

unrestrained professionalism they so urgently desire. . . .
Reaponsibility for the conduct of the membership will, there-
fbre, be vested within peer groups rather than superimposed
by an administrative hierarchy.1

Ellinger, however, reaffirms the value of cOOperative efforts to
develop and implement effective evaluation procedures.

The teaching and administrative staff should cooperatively
develop acceptable concepts of effective teaching and pro-
fessional leadership based on the philosophy and objectives
of the school system.

Criteria, procedure, and techniques should be cOOperatively
developed to evaluate all professional services.

Hain and Smith report some differences in their survey as
to actual procedures used by principals in conducting evaluations.

The principals would like teachers to invite them to see
their class in action, but our sample disclosed that only 2%
of the principals stated that their staff issued such invi-
tations.

Perhaps one reason for this unhappy situation is that
teachers by and large view evaluation as an administrative
prerogative and not as a joint effort. Cooperating principals
were asked if they involved senior or mature teachers in
decisions regarding the appointment of teachers. Only 12%
of the principals indicated that they utilize this type of
consultation.

Resource Conmitment
The review of the literature revealed a variety of factors
which were considered important to a successful evaluation program.

The most often mentioned resource was concerned with adequate

 

lHeald and Moore, op, oip,, p. 192.
2 . .
Ellinger, op, c1t.

3John H. Hain and George J. Smith, "How Principals Rate
Teachers," The American School Board Journal, CLV, No. 8
(February, 1968), 18.

S7

administrative time to carry-out the evaluation function. Torreson
reported:

Adequate staff time and personnel must be provided if the
non-tenure teacher evaluation program is to achieve the primary
objective of improving instruction. There was abundant evidence
reported by teachers, principals, and central staff administrators
that principals lacked sufficient time to do a thorough job of
evaluating teachers.1

Similarly, Bolton comments:

Some teacher evaluation programs are designed for failure
because not enough personnel are provided to do the job
adequately.2

Likewise, Henry first constructs a rationale fer evaluation, and then
illustrates the disparity between what Should be and what actually

happens.

Any evaluation of a teacher based on less than a week's observa-
tion is a travesty and is utterly unreliable. Sustained obser-
vation soon reveals how one day's lesson influences another,

how a teacher's behavior varies according to the task he sets
for himself, the stage of its development, the choice of
activity to carry out the task, and the teacher's conception of
what thinking is. . . . The principal's customary dropping in
sporadically once or twice a year, using the typical, subjective,
generalized rating scale (now archaic) cannot justify tenure,

or lead to the improvement of instruction of experienced
teachers.3

Thompson found that teachers perceived value in being apprised

as to their perfOrmance.

However, it is conclusively demonstrated that teachers wish
to participate more fully in the central Operations of the schools
and that they desire frequent feedback about their performances.
Teacher satisfaction is related to frequency of evaluation,
and perceived helpfulness of assessment. It is apparent that any
type of feedback whether positive or negative produces
satisfaction.4

 

Torreson, op. cit. 2Bolton, op. cit., p. 57.

4

3Henry, op, cit., p. 927. Thompson, op, cit.

58

Litherland reported in his study of Michigan school districts that:
Programs for evaluation of teachers for tenure were not
considered a priority matter.
Evaluators in programs studied were not adequately prepared
for this task.1
Torreson also observed: "An efficient and effective teacher evaluation
program requires training for all persons involved in evaluating
teachers."2
A summary observation by Ellinger reflects the degree of
commitment which the school district should have if an adequate
evaluation program is a desired goal.
The position description of principals and other adminis-
trators should emphasize the establishment and maintenance of

teachgr effectiveness of which teacher evaluation is an essential
part.

Communication

 

Intrinsic values to a system of teacher evaluation which
incorporates Specific provisions for free exchange of information
concerning the job performance, are repeatedly described in the
literature. Bolton states:

When teachers know what is written regarding their performance

and what is reported to the board of education, anxiety and rumor
are reduced.4

Torreson, as well, reported teacher acceptance of opportunities for

administrator-teacher communication.

 

1Litherland, op, cit. 2Torreson, op, cit.

4

3Ellinger, op, cit. Bolton, op, £13,, p. 64.

59

Classroom visitations by principals or supervisors should be
fOllowed by discussions with teachers concerning Observations.
Ample evidence was provided in the rating scale to indicate
that teachers highly value person-to—person communications.

A negative note was sounded by Thompson who reported:

. . the presence of communication problems between principals
and teachers. In the majority of instances, individuals on one
level indicate that they are either uninformed or misinfOrmed
about information possessed by members on the other level.2

Litherland also found indications of less than satisfactory communica-
tions, leading him to observe:
Communications between teachers and evaluators during the

evaluation process was almost non-existent.3

Factors Affecting Professional Growth Programs

 

Any one or a combination of the following professional growth
factors may Operate within a public school system. The subsequent
treatment of these various factors stems from their identification
by a number of authorities in this particular field, as being instru-

mental to professional growth program success or lack of same.

Administrative Position

 

The review of the literature has shown a considerable emphasis
on the value of a supportive administrative atmosphere if teachers
are to be encouraged in their efforts towards professional involve-
ment. This is not surprising as it constitutes a confirmation of the
material reviewed and presented in the treatment of teacher evalua—

tion considerations.

 

v—

1Torreson, op, cit. 2Thompson, op, cit.

~

3Litherland, op, cit.

60

A general management position is expressed by Podnos illus—
trating the importance of strong overall support to employee develop-
ment programs.

Rather, management must be willing to make a long-range
commitment to manpower and organization development and to
support the development prOgram in the face of occasional
frustrations and criticism, with an eye to Opening up the whole
company to new concepts of organization and flexible
functioning.1 '

In addition, the feasibility of planning and implementing develop-
mental programs within individual buildings is increasingly being
reCOgnized. As Westby-Gibson suggests:

Individual schools should have a high degree of autonomy in
planning in-service because schools differ in composition.2

Campbell presents a concept of the administrator who is able
to effectively portray many roles and select from a collective body
of techniques and resources the appropriate instructional assistance
for staff develOpment.

An administrator has the responsibility for establishing a
setting favorable to continuous professional development of the
total staff. Operating within the framework of a sound set of
personnel policies, he works with the staff in organizing and
planning for their in-service development.

This is no simple matter. It cannot be done by any set
formula, or by any mechanical, packaged plan. His professional
responsibility calls for his seeing staff development as
essentially a problem in teaching and learning, where his role
is one of counselor, consultant, facilitator, and encourager.

 

1I. Podnos, "Consultative Method of Training," Personnel,
XLVIII (September, 1971), 59.

2Dorothy Westby-Gibson, In-service Education, Perspectives
fer Educators (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Heaith,
Education add Welfare, Office of Education, 1967), p. 4.

 

61

His responsibility, in effect, is a teaching one, where his class
is the staff and his instructional materials and resources come
widely from the staff itself, the community, neighboring
universities, and the state education department.1

Doggett similarly expresses the desirability of a participatory
attitude on the part of administration as a forerunner to inservice
programs.

Schools with a democratic faculty organization, and with
faculty meetings conducted by the staff fer professional pur—
poses by virtue of the very nature of the democratic organiza-
tion have an in-service program.2

In support of this viewpoint, MacKenzie observes:

Many efforts at in-service education have failed because
they were planned by administrators or supervisors to achieve
some improved educational program or procedure which they
alone could visualize.3

The American Association of School Administrators is well aware of
the key roles which administrators occupy in stimulating develop-
mental programs.

That many inservice programs in local school districts fer
teachers and other personnel are not more fruitful may be due to
the fact that the school administrators themselves have not had
sufficient opportunity to raise their own sights. In Spite of
valiant efforts on the part of those to whom the leadership of
the schools of the nation have been entrusted, it has too often
been a case of the blind leading the blind.4

 

lCampbell and Gregg, op. oi_t_:_.-, pp. 222-23.

2Frank A. Doggett, "An In-service Training Program," Bulletin
of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XLIV
TFebruary, 1969), 122.

 

 

3Gordon N. MacKenzie, Develo in and Administerin the
Curriculum and Pupil Services, Forty-fourth Yearbodk O t e National
Society for the Study of Education, Part 11 (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1946), p. 43.

4American Association of School Administrators, Inservice
Education for School Administrators (Washington, D.C.: American
Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. 32.

62

Teacher Perce tions of
Pro fessional Growth

Much has been written regarding the opinions of the individual

 

teacher towards professional growth improvement programs and what
factors encourage or discourage teachers to accept responsibility for
the improvement of their own competencies. From the Seventh Yearbook,
National Society for the Scientific Study of Education is drawn an
illustration of the reSponse of a teacher of that era.

I know many teachers who are and have been pursuing pro-
fessional collegiate courses of study in connection with their
regular school work, and in every case which has come under my
observation these men and women have been and are today better
teachers for having continued their studies. They are sympa-
thetic in their attitude toward the efforts of the young
teachers and pupils; their minds are not decreasing in strength
and mental alertness, but are open to receive new truths, and
they are willing to embody these truths in practical lines of
work.

It is noteworthy that the same publication reported the existence
of incentive programs to encourage teacher participation in self-
improvement.
This work is its own best reward, but Since it is of value
to the schools, it is reasonable that it should be rewarded
in a tangible way, by increased salaries and by promotions.
Moreover, this external motive will appeal to many who are not
moved by the internal stimulus, and these are the ones who, for
the good of the service, are most in need of uplifting.2
Teacher reSponse to changes in instructional programs which
may necessitate an upgrading of the teachers' skills, can be a

possible source of anxiety and resistance. Moffit recognizes the

existence of this resistance to change when he comments:

 

1Lowrey, op, 533,, pp. 28-29.

2Ibid., p. 29.

63

The attitude toward change differs from teacher to teacher,
as in general, it does from person to person. Some things that
are a challenge to one teacher are a threat to another. The
more creative the ideas emerging from motivating challenges
calling for radical departures from traditional ways of teaching,
the greater will the threat appear to those who are made un-
comfortable by change.

Many reasons and rationalizations may be feund by teachers
as they are faced with the challenge or opportunity to become a
part of an in-service education prOgram. Those who feel the
least secure will likely be the first to erect the "protection
of barriers" around themselves.1

Turner cautions as to the importance of obtaining the support of the
group he terms veteran teachers if the prOposed program is to
succeed.

Any program supported by the supervisor could only partially
succeed if this group of veterans refused to endorse it; if they
chose to actively fight it, failure would most certainly result.
To be most effective, therefOre, new programs must be understood
and agreed to by this group of veteran teachers.2

Westby-Gibson counsels that: "Teachers need to be helped to make
in-service training more Of a personal and professional responsi-
bility."3 With regard to incentives fOr participation in develop-
mental programs, Westby-Gibson also advises:

Although such rewards may attract attendance, if teachers
are to be genuinely committed to professional growth, they
must see inservice education programs as individually meaningful
to them.4

Weber also is aware of the importance of teacher receptivity to

developmental programs but proposes that participation be strictly

on a teacher choice basis.

 

1Moffit, _p, cit., p. 16. 2Turner, op, cit., p. 118.

3Westby-Gibson, op. cit., p. 9. 4mid.

 

64

One should remember that motivation comes from within;
therefOre the ideal program should be such as to guarantee
that an individual teacher has complete freedom to participate
or not to participate.1

Or as MacKenzie commented regarding the lack of success of some
inservice programs:

Some efforts have resulted in failure because teachers did
not recognize the need implied in the recommendations and
hence did not accept whole-heartedly the suggested plan of
action.2

Goals, Objectives and Evaluation

The need for school systems to assess in some systematic
manner what it is that should be done to meet staff deficiencies,
appears consistently in the literature. Further, the importance of
multiple input into the process used to identify the goals and
objectives of the district, then fellowed by the same joint
responsibility for implementation of staff developmental programs,
is repeatedly affirmed.

Myers, as a result of his study concerned with staff per—

ceptions of inservice education programs, States:

In-service activities should be devised that will insure
total understanding of the system's goals and the hierarchical
staff positions that will facilitate teaching these goals.

There must be an organizational structure devised that
will utilize all the staff resources available.3

 

1Weber, op, pip,, p. 51.

2MacKenzie, op, cit., p. 43.

3David D. Myers, "Guidelines for an In-service Education

PrOgram Based on Staff Role Perceptions of Individual and Group Roles
in Selected Curriculum Deve10pment Processes" (unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Virginia, 1971).

65

Bessent, effectively uses biblically related admonitions to demonstrate
the need for total staff development of professional growth prOgrams.
Thou shalt not commit inservice programs unrelated to the
genuine needs of staff participants.
Thou shalt not kill interest through activities inappropriate
to the purposes of the program.1
In accord with the preceding statement, Moore emphasizes an excerpt
from the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards.

In-service education Should begin with the recognized needs
of individuals and groups. All members of the professional staff
should contribute to the recognition and definition of such
needs.

Boznango, in her study of teacher perceptions of inservice programs
in certain Michigan schools, summarized the desirability for mutual
planning thus:

Findings of the study indicate that teachers need to parti-
cipate in the planning of the projects, that their participation in
the inservice training needs to be voluntary, and that the teachers
ideas need to be developed and used, and that the planning process
needs to be improved--if there is concern that teachers have

positive feelings and that they grow as a result of the inservice
training.3

Asher, reporting on requisites for genuine staff involvement, refers

to certain conditions which should exist if change is to occur.

 

1E. W. Bessent et al., op, cit., p. 6.

2Moore, op, cit., p. 226.

3Marcia M. Boznango, "An Evaluation of Selected Title 111
In-service Projects in Michigan, as Perceived by Participating
Teachers on 13 Variables" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1968).

66

The prOblem must be important; one which has significance
to people who are emotionally and intellectually involved. The
problem is seen as a basis for action which needs a solution.

People who identify the problem, should determine goals and
ways of meeting them.1

Westby-Gibson refers to the feasibility of interaction between the
teacher and school which is described as: "co-action; a two-way

process in which teachers were involved in using their classes as the

bases for hypothesis making and testing."2

Weber also supports the concept of mutual goal setting.

The in-service program should be cOOperatively planned; it should
not be handed down by an administrator or by a board.

The in-service education programs should meet needs felt by
teachers.

Purposes, Goals, and Outcomes of in-service education programs
Should be made known to and interpreted to the people.

There should be a carefully planned program of evaluation of the
in-service education program.3

Gould, in discussing the role of counseling from an industrial view-
point designed to encourage employee self-development, stresses the
importance of identifying personal goals and ways to achieve them.
Gould also presents some common assumptions which may prevent achieve-
ment of these goals.

1) Best available in-plant candidate will get advancement.

2) Individual doesn't have enough time for self-development.

3) Development is someone else's responsibility.

4) Organization is rigid, unchanging, and that jobs must

continue to be done as now. 4
S) Continuation in present job requires no particular attention.

 

1James J. Asher, Inservice Education Ps chological Perspec-
tives (Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory or Educational
Research and Development, December, 1967), pp. 16-17.

2Westby-Gibson, op, pip,, p. 18. 3Weber, op, oip,, p. 51.

4could, op. cit., pp. 230-31.

67

The evaluation of inservice training programs is considered
necessary but somewhat difficult to accomplish, because of on-going,
multiple program stages. Moore and Walters give an indication Of
some outward signs of the results of staff improvement programs.

1) Successes in the in-service program itself.
2) Changes in educational practice.
3) Changes in people who were involved.

4) Improved educational outcome.1

Asher refers to the necessity for evaluating inservice programs, but

also advises to "separate factual data from value judgment."2

Resource Commitment

The position of the National Education Association relative
to support of professional development programs, is expressed in
brief but comprehensive terminology.

To assure leadership in education, the NEA must support
programs for professional develOpment of teachers through in-
service and pre-service education, and continuous develOpment
of professional standards and self-governance of the profession.
This shall be done by committing resources, including funds,
for programs in professional development and instructional
services which provide an adequate balance for efforts and
support in economic and field service areas.3

The availability of time to conduct inservice programs de-

signed for staff improvement poses problems for many school districts.

It is interesting and pertinent to note the change in emphasis over

the past half-century with respect to the reSponSibility of the

 

1Moore and Walters, op. cit., pp. 242-43.

2Asher, op, £11,, p. 20.

3National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings of

One-Hundred-Eighth Annual Meetiog, p. 758.

68

teacher to participate in growth activities at times other than the
school day. In the Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the
Scientific Study of Education, reference is made to the administrative
expectation that teachers were to devote considerable personal time

to district-wide developmental programs.

The amount that is thus required of a teacher in a year's
attendance upon these classes is quite large, certainly in
most cases equivalent to two hours a week. In many cases, it
is undoubtedly larger. This is not an undue requirement, and
if profitably employed must result in great good to the work
of the teacher.

Whitney also reported the practice of a school district which placed
high priority on monthly Saturday morning teachers' meetings.

Following the custom inaugurated last year the general
teachers' meetings will be held at the high school auditorium
from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on the third Saturday morning
of each school month until further notice. All teachers are
expected to attend these meetings and to participate in the
discussions. I realize that occasionally it is impossible
for a teacher to be present, in which case please arrange
with your principal and with me to be excused. Only such
excuses as would justify absence from school will be accepted.2

The comment from the ERS Infermation Aid, No. 2, December, 1969,
illustrates the significant changes which have occurred over the
subsequent years.

As school systems begin to plan new inservice programs, they
are confronted immediately with the problem of TIME. Teachers
already work far beyond the regular teaching day, and they are
entitled to free weekends. It is highly desirable that plans be
worked out whereby teachers can be released during the teaching
day to participate in a regularly-scheduled, well-staffed in-
service program.

 

lLowrey, op, cit., p. 28. 2Whitney, op, £11,, p. 171.

3National Education Association, Release of Classroom Teachers
for Inservice Trainin (washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, ERS In ormation Aid, December, 1969), p. 1.

 

 

69

That the matter of time fOr developmental programs is real, is
attested to by Johnson.
One of the main reasons for the lack of receptivity on the
part of faculty members for an in-service training program is
that it is added to the already busy day for the teacher--
particularly this is true of the beginning teacher.
Turner is even more succinct when he states: "After-school in-service
programs are a thing of the past."2
The ERS InfOrmation Aid, Release of Classroom Teachers for
Inservice Training, summarized a survey of school districts having
12,000 or more students to determine the extent Of released time
provisions for inservice programs. Approximately 260 of nearly 500
systems that returned an answer indicated the existence of such pro-
visions. However, in the terminology of the report, the "results
were meager." The scope of released time provisions was largely
restricted to:
. . . occasionally pupils are dismissed for a half or full day
to permit teachers to attend system-wide programs. Many
indicated that decisions regarding teachers' participation in
professional growth activities Often are made on an individual
basis, usually in the cases of teachers who are involved in
curriculum revision or textbook selection or who have been
selected to attend in-service sessions in a particular subject
area.3
The general topic of resource commitment to staff development
is summarized in a study by McClure who surveyed personnel policies

in Michigan school system. McClure's findings give evidence of what

sometimes happens in the harsh world of reality.

 

1Johnson, op, cit., p. 2. 2Turner, op, cit., p. 117.

3National Education Association, Release Of Classroom Teachers

 

for Inservice Training, p. l.

70

It will be observed, however, that a very small percentage
of the ferty systems give tangible evidence that they recognize
the responsibility of the community for bearing the cost of
keeping the teacher abreast of recent developments in his
profession, or of maintaining his professional growth, both Of
which offer promise of increasing the efficiency of his
performance as an educator in the community.1

Or as Bessent points out:

Thou shalt not commit inservice on a
shoestring.2

Communication

 

Myers, in his recent study, identified the necessity for
effective communication of inservice program goals and their relation-
ships to instructional improvement.

This overall prOposition would best be synthesized under

the heading of communication. Aggregate communication to all
categories of personnel within the system, explicating the
significance and goals of the in-service program, will insure
clarification of individual and group roles in the various
curriculum development procedures.3
Westby-Gibson emphasizes the importance for educators to understand
the nature of the school as it relates to the social setting. sub-
sequently, it then becomes a mutual responsibility for all involved
to effectively communicate with the public if maximum support is
to be attained.
Change is dependent on the degree of community understanding

of schools. A high level of understanding builds both
psychOIOgical and financial support for change. To promote

 

1Warner McClure, "A Survey of Certain Aspects of Personnel
Policies in Michigan Public School Systems" (unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1952).

2Bessent, op, cit., p. 7. 3Myers, op, cit.

71

such understanding, administrators, board members, and to a

lesser extent teachers, must relate themselves to their

communities.1
Communication can also take the form of feedback to the teacher
regarding classroom practices. The use of video-tape recording of
teacher presentations has shown promise in helping teachers to
critique their own performances, particularly when separated from
possibly threatening evaluation systems. Johnson describes an in-
service technique utilizing video-tape which is "designed to counter

impersonality in schools and to foster understanding and relating

to the child."2

Changes in Emphasis
The review of the literature reveals that historically
little was done to objectively evaluate inservice programs. In its
publication, "Inservice Education of Teachers," the National
Education Association reported:
Prior to 1953, however, most of the articles published on the
subject are largely opinion and recommendation. The writing
in this period centered itself on the forms and problems of
in-service education. More recent studies illustrate the trend
toward some kind of evaluation of in-service training.3

Denemark commented on the scarcity of research concerning inservice

programs:

 

1Westby-Gibson, op, cit., p. 3. 2Johnson, op, cit., p. 7.

3NatiOnal Education Association, In-service Education of
Teachers, Research Summary (Washington, D.C.: National Educafion
Association, 1966), p. 3.

 

72

Research on in-service education, considered as an
integral part of teacher education was disappointingly
scanty.l
Westby-Gibson identifies some new patterns of inservice education
combining one or more of the following:

1) Foster self-directed change,

2) Emphasize process rather than content.

3) Intensive group experience.

4) Use of feedback.

a) Students

b) Interaction analysis

c) Micro-teaching2

Bessent presents three approaches which have significance for
inservice developmental programs:
1) Laboratory setting

2) Classroom experience model
3) Teaching demonstration model

3
Bessent's strategies have pertinence in that the appropriate model
can be selected to meet the particular instructional need.

The movement towards establishing behavioral objectives to
guide inservice training programs appears to be the most recent
development in the field. Roberson, in reporting a study concerned
with effects of inservice training on instructional programs,

indicated:

The results Show that the writing of behavioral objectives
at all COgnitive and affective levels seems to bring about more

 

1George W. Denemark and James B. MacDonald, "Pre-service
and In-service Education of Teachers," Review of Educational
Research, XXXVIII, No. 3 (June, 1967), 240.

2westby-Gibson, op, cit., pp. 22-25.

3Bessent, op, cit., p. 7.

73

change in teacher methods than training in classroom observa-
tion systems such as Flander's and Roberson's systems.1

Summary

The review of the literature was concentrated on the two
major areas of this study: teacher evaluation and professional
growth programs. As a prelude to this review, however, a brief
description was presented tracing the develOpment of personnel
management because of its integral part in organization operation.
Significant trends and philosophies regarding the Status of the
employee as a component in organizational goal-setting were
explored. These ranged from highly restricted employee participa-
tion procedures, to those which were explorations in depth of
individual competencies and goals as related to Objectives of the
organization. The literature revealed definite relationships
between supportive managerial and supervisory posture and the

desired goal of employee participation.

The relationship between teacher evaluation and professional

growth programs was demonstrated by many authorities. Indeed, the

stimulus to staff development is perceived as a principal ingredient

of evaluation systems. The values of a non-threatening, supportive

climate designed to assist teachers in functioning more effectively,

have been attested to by many of the references. However, some evi-

dence has been presented which indicates that the theoretical

hoped-for goal does not always occur in the reality of school

 

1Wayne E. Roberson, Effects of Teacher In—service on
Instruction and Learning (Tucson, Ariz.: EPIC Evaluation Center,

, p. l .

 

74

district practice. There is no general agreement whether this contra-
diction between principle and practice results from a failure to
recognize this complementary nature of the two areas, or whether the
implementation process is weakened by a lack of commitment to provide
necessary resources in terms of time and money.

A number of factors have been identified in the literature
as causal to either enhancement or inhibition of teacher evaluation
and professional growth programs. Purposes, goals, evaluation,
administrative position, teacher organization position, perceptions
of individual teachers, problems of measurement, resource commitment
and communication are examples of these factors.

Perhaps the most widespread agreement is apparent in the
recognition of instructional improvement as a major purpose of
teacher evaluation programs. By contrast, however, some evidence
is found which indicates that the prime fecus of evaluation is on
non-tenure teachers. This inconsistency has been rationalized in the
literature as resulting from a lack of administrative time to mean—
ingfully evaluate all teachers. A further consideration is the need
for the administrator to concentrate on those evaluations of non-
tenure teachers so as to meet state tenure regulations. Until re-
cently, the factor of teacher mobility and consequent administrative
responsibility fer numerous non-tenure teacher evaluations was
another limiting factor. However, such is not presently applicable
with the oversupply of teachers. Under current conditions, it is of
considerable interest to speculate if the teacher evaluation process

will function to a greater degree in the tenure teacher province.

75

School district support of inservice activities has been
described as insufficient according to some literature sources.
Heilman concluded:

The lack of concern fer teacher training and professional
growth through local school in-service activities. . . .1

O'Hanlon and Witters after studying school district inservice programs
expressed a similar point of view.
One cannot look at inservice education without becoming
discouraged over the small amounts of time and money being
Spent by local schools on professional development of
their staffs.2
The review of the literature further reveals some promising
practices which recommend the use of multiple evaluating sources, or
team approach, in contrast to the traditional administrative-centered
model. Included are evaluations by self, peer, students and possibly
parents. Mutual establishment of teaching objectives appears more
frequently in the literature. Associated with teaching objectives is
the measurement of pupil gain, although the determination of teacher
effect on pupil growth is difficult to isolate. The question of

individual teacher effect on long-term student growth is also

associated with the foregoing.

 

1Arthur Heilman, Effects of an Intensive Inservice Program on
Teachers' Classroom Behavior and'Popils"Reading‘AEhievement, Coopera-
tive Research Project NO._§70§ (WaShington, D.C.: Department Of
Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, November, 1965),

p. 2.

 

2James O'Hanlon and Lee A. Witters, Breakthrough: Inservice

Education fer All Schools, a report issued by theiDepartment of .
Eddcation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Department of Education,
1967), pp. 9-10.

 

76

General agreement exists that evaluation practices should
become more objectively oriented and that emphasis must be placed on
teacher accomplishment of the defined job, not on a set of personal
characteristics which is subject to various kinds of rater errors.

Research objectives have moved from a concentration on teacher
personality traits and possible relationships, to identification of
classroom instructional techniques which are successful. The causes
for teacher variation of teaching behavior are also of current
interest to researchers.

The feasibility of mutual planning and implementation of both
teacher evaluation and professional growth programs, is extensively
reported in the literature.

Probably, the most significant unanswered question relative
to the topics of this study, pertains to the apparent paradox of
teacher evaluation with possible attendant punitive overtones,
coupled with the supportive administrator posture which most authori-
ties consider a requisite to meaningful personal development. The
analogy has been presented which compares the role of the adminis-
trator to that of either an umpire or a coach. That the more compre-
hensive role of the administrator is desirable, has support in the
literature as illustrated by Staley's study which analyzed the
principal's position as an inservice adviser for teachers. Staley
observed:

Supervisory contact, time spent by the principals in the
classroom observation of teachers, has a positive effect on

77

teachers' ratings of principals as inservice education advisors
in the Portland School District Professional Growth Incentive
PrOgram.1
In conclusion, it seems appropriate to comment that adminis-
trator receptivity to genuinely Sharing responsibility for planning

and implementing teacher evaluation and professional growth programs

is deserving of further study.

 

1Gerald J. Staley, "The Elementary Principal's Success as
an Inservice Education Advisor for Teachers in a Professional
Growth Incentive Program” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University
of Oregon, 1971).

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter describes the survey procedures and research

methods used in the conduct of the study. The fellowing major areas

are included:

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

7)

Type of Study

POpulation

Instrumentation, construction and pilot study
Collection of data and follow-up procedures
Coding and tabulation of data

Statistical procedures

Summary

Type of Study

The purpose of the study is both descriptive in the context

of surveying selected Michigan public School districts to determine

current status of teacher evaluation and professional growth pro-

grams and comparative because of the demonstrated relationships to

the literature base attendant to these two areas.

78

79

Population

 

The total number of K-12 public school districts within the
intermediate school districts of Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb,
Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne comprise the population of
the study. Publications from the respective intermediate school
district offices were used to verify the existence of public school
districts and to determine placement into the reSpective student
population categories. These contiguous intermediate districts
collectively display a variety of descriptive factors such as stu-
dent population, urban-suburban-rural composition, current expendi-

tures and professional staff-student ratio (see Table l).

Instrumentation

The instrument used in this study was the mailed question-
naire supplemented by personal interviews with administrative
officials of sixteen school districts chosen from a table of random
numbers, equally distributed by student population category (see
Table 2). A copy of this instrument appears in Appendix B. The
single exception to this procedure was category VI where the city
of Detroit constitutes the only group member.

The questionnaire was constructed with the assistance of the
Michigan State University Research Consultation Office based on the
two major sections of the study:

I Teacher Evaluation Programs

11 Professional Growth Programs

8O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n.om cod ooH NMH mg<poe
ooH H m. H awouuoo mo xpfiu
H>
A.cc c m.c a ooo.oo~ cu Hoo.o~
>
cod no w.e AH ooo.o~ cu floo.oH
>H
m.em an e.em ce ooo.o~ cu soo.m
HHH
m.vn mm o.mn he ooo.m Op flee."
HH
a.mn NH a.ma 0H mucoOSpu ooo.u O»
H
unav:0dmom nuancedmom
. . “much anomoueu
snowwueu muonMmea we a“ haemoueu :ofiuefisnOQ
ueoouoa nocazz accused Hooch

 

.ouwaumwp oueflvOEHOOefi an mownououeo

camouflaged u:op:um-:.~ mam<h

81

 

coupe: whomever: oxen nusom zow>po>w¢ OHHfi>uOHzou

 

defiance xeo Haze: cowno exam noun: announced:
awouuoo uoeu< ee< xuwu nephew hocooom escaped: sarcasm
H> > >H HHH HH H

 

.mowaomoudo :OwOeHSQOd ueouzpm an mouspooonn sofi>houcw Hdenom a“ mueanfiofiuadmtu.n mqm<k

82

Responses were solicited in the ferm of yes-no questions,
degree of responsibility, importance or involvement scales, numerical
answers and provision for additional comments related to factors
which may enhance or retard teacher evaluation and professional
growth programs.

The questionnaire was field tested involving six public
school districts, having K-l2 organization patterns, in Kent County,
Michigan during the month of February, 1972 through the cOOperation
of central office administrators. A number of revisions were made
reflecting administrator reaction to the function and clarity of

individual questions.

Collection of Data

 

Questionnaires were mailed on April 19, 1972 to superinten-
dents of schools for all districts within the previously described
pOpulation. A cover letter was attached describing the rationale
fer the study (see Appendix C). Detailed instructions were provided
to the recipients so as to expedite questionnaire completion and
return. A second copy of the questionnaire was enclosed to be used
as a work copy if desired. In addition, a stamped, self-addressed
enveIOpe was provided.

Interviews were scheduled with representatives of the ran-
domly selected districts concurrent with the mailing of the question-
naires.

On May 15, 1972, after a total reSponse rate of 65.2 per cent

had been attained, a follow-up letter (see Appendix D) was sent to

83

non-respondents. By the June 8, 1972 cut-off date for questionnaire
return, a total response rate of 80.3 per cent was achieved (see

Table 3). The percentage of return by student pOpulation categories,
varied from a low of 66.7 per cent (category V) to a high of 100 per
cent (category IV) with a mean Of 80.3 per cent. By intermediate
district, the low response was 60 per cent (Lapeer and Livingston)
with the high reSponse 100 per cent (Oakland). One additional re-
sponse was received after the cut-off date resulting in a final return
rate of 81.1 per cent. One questionnaire was returned unanswered with
the accompanying statement: "I regret that we have neither the staff

nor the time to participate in this study."

Cod1pgand Tabulation of Data

Responses were coded on the Data Coding Forms used by the
computer laboratory of Michigan State University. The resources
of the university's Computer Center Keypunch Division were utilized
to keypunch and verify responses.

Comments made by respondents were not included in the keypunch
tabulation, but were recorded and tallied separately.

Responses from the city of Detroit were not included in the
keypunch section. This was necessary because of the range of re-
Sponses, partially attributed to the regional system of organization
now in effect in that city. Comments obtained through the interview

procedure have been included with those of other participants.

8£I

 

 

 

n.oo 00H NnH ooH H 5.00 0 o ooH nH nH 0.00 on 00 m.v5 mm 50 05 NH 0H nHeNOH
v.H5 mN mm ooH H mN H v ooH n n 0.05 oH nH N.o0 m 0H ooH H H nexus
on 0 oH - - ooH H H - - - ooH H H 5.00 v 0 ooH N N aweeuenwz
5.00 0 5 - t t - - ooH H H - t - ooH n n 5.00 N n uHeHu .um
ooH 0N 0N . . ooH H H 00H 0 0 ooH NH NH 00H 5 5 ooH N N vowaeo
o.oa 5H HN - . ooH N N 00H m n 05 5 oH 5.00 N n ooH n n niece:
cc H m - - . - - - - - ocH H H n.nn H H ooH H H eeuaueHeHH
8 n e. - - . - - .. - - 2: H H 2: N N - - H .88...
N.05 0H HN . - coH H H r t t 0.50 5 0 05 5 OH on H N oouoeou
.onox .OAON «pOHuunHo .nnoa .nnom .dnom .onom .oz .nnox .nuom .oz .dnoa .Anex .oz .Awex .dnom .Oz .nnoz .Anom .oz
.02 .oz Hench a .02 Hayes 0 .02 kuoh o .02 Honey 0 .oz Hench p .0: Honor a .02 Huueh
H> > >H HHH HH H uuHuunHa
ouwHuoauoucH
AH¢u05 noHuououwu :oHuaHsnea

 

.nOHuououeo :oHueHenOA cHAuHa ouOHuuqu Hoenun euaHveaueueH 50 nonconnoa--.n an<h

85

Statistical Procedures

 

Staff members of the Michigan State University, College of
Education, Research Consultation Office, made significant contribu-
tions to data analysis procedures.

Statistical procedures used in the analysis of data, provided
infermation concerning each of the variables of the questionnaire,
with regard to student population categories. Data were provided

in terms of frequency counts, means and percentages.

Summarz

A description of the planning and implementation procedures
for this study has been included. The selection of study partici-
pants has been discussed, and a break-down by reSpective intermediate
districts also has been provided. The construction of the study
questionnaire; its subsequent field testing and revision has been
presented. In addition, the reSponse patterns and statistical pro—

cedures used to analyze data have been explained.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

The major purpose of this study was to survey selected
Michigan public school districts regarding the current status of
teacher evaluation and professional growth programs. In addition
to the collective response, separate student population categories
were established in order to determine if school districts differed
in their approaches to teacher evaluation and professional growth
programs from the criterion of district student enrollment.

Differing total response frequencies result because all
variables were not completed by all reSpondents. Consequently,
there are variations in the total number of responses for each

variable within surveyed categories.

Teacher Evaluation Programs

Staff Evaluation Procedures
The question of teacher evaluation included as a master con-

tract item revealed that the large majority of districts do have

86

87

such provisions (see Table 4). A tendency does appear towards a
higher master contract inclusion rate commensurate with larger

district size.

Written Personnel Policies

 

Written Board of Education policies supplementing teacher
master contract provisions appear to be in the large majority in all
population categories (see Table 5). No substantial differences seem

to exist with respect to district size.

Written Job Descriptions

 

Written job descriptions for teaching staff do not appear as
a common practice (see Table 6). The data indicated that 53 per cent
of the total number of respondents reported the existence of such
job descriptions. Four qualified yes answers were given, indicating
less than complete job descriptions for staff in those districts.
The practice was least prevalent in population category I and most

prevalent in category V.

Opinion of Evaluation Procedures

 

Taken as a whole, approximately 75 per cent of the districts
characterized teacher evaluation procedures as adequate. By population
categories (see Table 7) I and II expressed the greatest percentage
of inadequate teacher evaluation procedures. AS a group, 20 per cent
of the districts reported inadequate teacher evaluation procedures,
which on a three-point scale reveals considerable dissatisfaction

with current practice.

88

 

mm NoH n0vnm aNvaw awnvvw nmmU05 nHHvHa

 

unmouom mochHmom > >H HHH HH H
ouHmoonu Hooch mOHnowoumu :oHpeH3905

 

.m05 omoucoouod
:H OOHHOdoH HmconH>oud Homuucoo Noumea NeHucosoHnasm mOHOHHoa :OHueos0o mo whoop coupHH2--.m mHm<e

 

on HoH HovooH HHHHNH Hence» Hmnvom HHHme

 

> >H HHH HH H

«cocked mOmedmOm mOHaomoumu :oHumHndOd

euHmOHeou Hmuoe

 

.m05 omeucoouom :H peakedou Huoeuueoo Hounds wcHsooou :H wovsHoeH nauseoOOAQ :OHumsHe>o mmmumut.v mHm<b

89

 

ooH NoH HcvooH HmHvooH mevooH HenvooH HHHVooH nHeucH

 

 

ON om H-U- . HNUmH HchH Havcu Hmu5m oceaeeeeeH
e5 c5 HcvooH HoHv5N Homvo5 Humvee Hagec ooeaeoc<
c c H-V- HHUw Hmcm HNHc HHVe eeeaeece HHcmHm
accouoa noncoomom uncouoa uncouom escaped poached ugoopoa
oanoHEou Heeoe > >H HHH HH H

 

.momaucooaoo :H wouuonoa .moasvoooud :oHuesHe>o Hmmum mo aoHeHnotu.5 mHm<h

 

 

mm moH Hcvac Hmche Humvee Hmmvem HHHVHH
advance noncommoz > >H HHH HH H
ouHmOAEOU Hence mloomoueu :oHuaHSQOH

 

.m05 ammucoopod :H vouHOQOH HmcoHpHmOd mmeum wanoeou mom meoHudHhomov no“ :ouuHH2-1.0 mHm<b

9O

Existence of Written Evaluation
Procedures

 

 

The practice of formal written evaluations of teaching staff
is almost totally accepted by respondents, with little variation by
district Size (see Table 8). However, six of the respondents did
comment that teacher evaluation procedures were conducted primarily
for probationary teachers. This concept appears again in Tables 12 and
13 regarding frequency of evaluations.

Dogree of Responsibility for Conduct
of Staff Evaluation

 

 

Initially, the expectation existed to draw finer relationships
among the various administrative positions regarding current reSponSi-
bility fOr teacher evaluations. However, analysis of the data shows
considerable variation in response rates by reSpective populations.
TherefOre, five major administrative positions which are present in
all districts are described (see Table 9).

The composite response to the question would indicate that
the size of the district and the superintendent's role in teacher
evaluation generally are unrelated. It is Observed, however, that
superintendents of larger districts (category V) are more likely to
be disassociated from current conduct of staff evaluation. Conse-
quently, building principals are universally perceived as a major force
in teacher evaluation.

Generally, teachers have little responsibility fer the eval-
uation process, Showing a mean of 3.08 on a 4.0 scale. However, it
would appear that smaller enrollment districts have a higher percentage

of teachers involved in the evaluation process.

 

 

o0.0 05 00.0 H5.0 H0.0 00.0 50.0 mucovspm
00.0 N5 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 unsound
0o.0 05 00.0 00.N 0H.0 mm.N oo.0 mnogoeob
oo.H HoH oo.H oo.H oo.H oo.H oo.H mHenHocHHd maHvHHsm
mn.~ ooH HH.N ec.~ om." ~H.N m~.N HeoeceecHeeaam
made: momcodmom

ouHmOdEou Hench > >H HHH HH H :oHuHmoa

 

91

.HuHHHpHmconmou umoueoam mcHu:Omoadoa H HHH:

 

VIH ofimom mmfimofi Cw UOHHOQOH flOHHMSHmH/u mmwum MO HUSUCOU UCOHHHHU Rom NAUHHfiQHmHHOQWGH MO OOHwQQII.m mr—m<h.

 

 

5e noH HcvooH HmHvue Hmmvea HmmH5a HHHHooH no» nanosecond
ooH 0 NH 50 en HH noH eaceaz
noH c 0H 00 mm HH neeccanee ecceaz
u=OOHOd momconmom
oeHmcaeou Hence > >H HHH HH H

 

.m05 cumucooaod :H vouuoaou Human weHnoaou mo mcoHuesHe>o :ONNHHS Heeaomtt.0 mH0<h

92

Parents are not considered to have major or some responsi-
bility in any Size population category. The parental overall mean of
3.90 would therefbre reflect a minor role in current teacher evalua-
tion.

Students likewise play very little part in the evaluation
process, indicating a composite mean of 3.80. Further, one district
of the total reporting, indicated that Students have some reSponSi-
bility for the evaluation process.

Responsibility Which Should Exist
fOr the Conduct Of:StaffiEvaluaEiOn

A considerable shift towards more involvement of teachers,
parents and students is immediately apparent (see Table 10). The
mean of each of these groups is substantially reduced, apparently
reflecting a perception on the part of chief school officers to widen
the evaluation base. By population categories, larger districts
(category V) Show less tendency to involve teachers, parents and
students in the evaluation procedures.

The paradox between "what is" and "what Should be" is most
apparent in the matter of responsibility for the conduct of staff
evaluation.
éoministrative Werk Responsibility
Devoted to Evaluation

It is observed that the majority of central office administra-
tors perceive their involvement in the evaluation process to be in
the minimum category. The composite of the building principals,

however, indicates that some 46 per cent are placed in the middle

93

 

 

 

50.N N5 5H.0 00.N 00.N 05.N 00.N uncoveum
00.N H5 00.0 00.N 50.N 0N.0 00.0 hunched
50.N 05 00.0 HH.N 00.N N0.N 00.N mnocoeoh
H0.H NOH 00.H 00.H 00.H 00.H 00.H mHedHoede NchHHsm
HH.N ooH HH.N 00.N me." 5a.H mo.~ ececcoueHeoaam
> >H HHH HH H
memo: nonconmom eoHuHmoa
ouHmonsou Hench moHuomoueo :OHueHsn00

 

.5uHHH0Hmcoamoa pneumonm

}

0=Hueomoudoa H nuHs qu OHeOm mucous

aH vouHOHOH HeoHuasHe>o mmeum mo pounaoo you umeo 0Haonm was» HHHHHnHmeoamon mo oopuoott.0H 000<9

94

category of one-third to two-thirds involvement. The tendency does
appear for building principals in population categories I, II and

III to have a higher proportion of their administrative work reSponSi-
bility devoted to evaluation procedures (see Table 11).

Epeouencyof Probationary
Teacher Evaluation

 

Taken as a composite, 86 per cent of the respondents conducted
probationary teacher evaluation two to three times annually. If more
frequent evaluation categories are added, the cumulative percentage

rises to 91 per cent. Undoubtedly, regulations within the Michigan

Tenure Law have contributed to the fermalization of evaluation pro-
cedures for probationary teachers. This is further reflected in the
general consistency of the pOpulation categories (see Table 12).

Eight per cent of the districts conduct annual evaluation. One dis-
trict reported a pattern of less than annual evaluation for probation-
ary teachers. No district indicated an indefinite pattern fer conduct
of evaluation.

frequency of Tenure Teacher
Evaluation

 

 

Again, taken as a composite, 5 per cent of the respondents
conduct tenure teacher evaluation two to three times annually. If
more frequent evaluation categories are added, the cumulative per-
centage becomes 9. Some 51 per cent evaluate teachers annually.
Twenty-six per cent of the districts indicate less than annual
evaluations, with a considerable percentage (15) showing an indefinite

pattern fOr tenure teacher evaluation.

£95

 

 

H 5 50 - - ooH - - eoH - - ooH 5H an on HA - 05 .unn< .eHae<
NH 0. H. 0 HH 5c 0 HH Ho NH «H on NH 5. He 5H on mN nHeHHueHHa aeHeHHa.
HH HH cc - OH OH - oH ooH 4H H. H. OH - on on 0H 00 .cm .eom me .HHa
0 0H HH - an on - HH an - HN e5 HH - 00 an an an .10 .uon we .HHa
c a" mo - on on - 0H «0 a oe mm .H - 00 an m" on Hoeeoeuoa we .HHc

no .uosm .unn<
H a .0 - - eoH - 0 Ho - HH an a - Ha HA - 50 .HoueH Ho .HHa
.8 .090 .32
H H ea - HA m5 - - ooH - - ooH HH - no - - ooH .uaam .ucew<
- e co - - ooH - - ooH - 0 ea - 0 ea - - ooH ueoeeooeHuoaau
H-H\N H\N-H\H HHH-o H-H\N H\N-H\H H\H-o H-n\~ A\N-H\H n\H-o H.H\N an-H\H HHH-o H.n\N HHN-H\H 0\H-o H-H\N H\N-H\H an-o
> >H HHH HH H ceHuHaea

ouHuonaou

 

ueHuoueuwu eoHuuHsnoa

 

.nouuuceouon eH vouhonou .nneooun eoHuwus>e o» voue>ov HNHHHAHu:OH»OH Mao: o>HuewuanHlew we eoHuuonopaoe.HH mHn<h

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 H 00 «0
tr. 9‘. .>IIIIII|/ \IIIIIIII>II .Ias > a
00H . u u t s H H 0 0 em 00 N0 00 0 0 N N Hooch
0 t t t u u u t n a 50 0 00 N t t t - >
0H t I n t t u t 0H N 00 5 0N 0 u u 0 H >H
50 t t u a u 0 H HH 0 0e 5H 00 0H 0 H 0 H HHH
m0 . t - - - t - 0 N 50 0N 00 NH 0 H t . HH
NH - u t - t - s u t 50 0 0N 0 0 H t t H
0 .oz 0. .oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .Oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0
H5 :00 H5 0H0 H5 0cN H N v HHHMMMHH emwmemwmwa
Hooch movcH Huo>m 5Ho>m Huo>m Honasz no 0

 

neoconou HueeoHuepoun How coHuenHe>o mo HancocOAmut.NH 000<5

97

By population category, it would appear that smaller districts
(I, II and III) conduct tenure teacher evaluation more frequently than
on an annual basis. Similarly, schools in categories IV and V demon-
strate a pattern of less than annual evaluation (see Table 13).

In comparing evaluation composites for probationary and
tenure teachers, it is apparent that a practice of more frequent
evaluations for probationary teachers exists among respondents from

all student population categories (see Table 14).

H —a..u.m

Eroqoencyof Classroom Observations
Precedin Evaluation (PrObationary I
Teachers;

 

Taken as a total, all reSponding districts indicate a mean
of 1.94 observations preceding evaluation (see Table 15). There are
no substantial differences reported among the various population

categories.

freqoency of Classroom Observations

Preceding Evaluation {Tenure Teachers)

As a group, reSpondents indicated a mean of 1.49 observations

 

preceding the evaluation (see Table 16). No substantial variation
exists among the respective population categories with the exception
Of category V where the mean is 3.40.

From the data, it would appear that districts are likely to
conduct more frequent classroom observations of probationary teachers
preceding the evaluation process than with tenure teachers. However,
the difference between the probationary and tenure teacher categories

is only .45 Observations.

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

00H 00N 0H0 00 00
HoH 0H 0H 1 - 0H 0H 0H 0H H0 H0 0 e H H t u 0 0 H0005
0 00 N I t 5H H 5H H __00 N t t r s - t t t >
NH 0N 0 r u 00 e s s N0 0 t t - - - t r . >H
50 HH 0 t t 0H 0 HH 0 50 HN . t t s t r 0 0 HHH
«0 0H 0 - - 0 H «N 0 we 0H 0 N 0 H - u 0 H HH
NH - - t t 5H N t r 50 0 5H N t - t u u r H

0 .Oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .Oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .oz 0 .02

H. 0 N H N n e bemoan”.

Hooch once :OHomHe on

moveH 5Ho>m Hhoem 5ho>m Honesz HO 0

 

.MHOp—Odov OHSCOH HOW :OfingerO MO kufl0570hmts.mfi mung“.

99

lllnfilfltlsha: -v

mHonooop OHseoH :1..1.

 

mHonoeou 5HeHOHueHOHd
:oHuesHa>m mo 5ocosoon

H005 H005 H005

.HoeeH H3 20 HEN H N H H. m

 

 

m

0H
0H
0N
mm
00
00

00

Paulodeu sneezed

00
00
mm

 

 

00

 

.mHo:Odou OHscou 00m 5HeeoHueceHd 5n eoHuesHa>O mo 5OHO=OOH0 OHHmOHEOO meHuHOHOH adeHutt.vH m00<9

100

 

 

 

3. H 8 5 mm e5 2 n 338.

8.5 c H H - H H >

cm. H oH - H. e H - 2

on. H Hm H H 5 a H HHH

c5 . H 8 H 2 c 5 - HH

8.5 H: - H 5 H H H

0:002 mcMwHMMom 0 H We 0 +0 5Hououmu

£52 55288

 

.HHOHEHHHEHO NHHHOOOOHHH mHOHHanu 5HeHHOHumHHOHHH mo mHHOHue>HOmHHo 5080008..th 0005.

101

 

 

 

00.H 55 N 00 0H 0 N N mHepoe
00.0 0 u 0 t t - N >
00.H 5 u v H H H . >H
NN.H 5N H 0N 0 H u . HHH
00.H 0N H 0H 5 N u 1 HH
00.H 0H - 0 H t H u H
mcHuHoaom 0 H N 0 0 +0 5Hououeo
memo: Hooch Hopasz :oHueHsnoa

 

.eoHuusHu>o weHveoeHd mHosoeou OHSHOH mo «HOHue>Homno EOOHmmeHutt.0H mHm<H

102

Scheduled Conferences to Discuss
EvaluatiOn

 

All reporting districts (104) indicated that a conference is
a part of the formal evaluation process for probationary teachers.

Ninety-one of the 95 respondents, representing 96 per cent
of the total, reported that a conference is a part of the formal
evaluation process for tenure teachers. There were no obvious dif— R

ferences by population categories.

Written Evaluation to Teacher r

 

All reporting districts (103) indicated that a written eval- E
uation is given to probationary teachers.

Ninety-three of the 95 reporting districts representing a
98 per cent affirmative answer, responded that the evaluation is

presented in written form to tenure teachers.

Annual Composite Evaluation

A total of 52 of the 101 reporting districts, representing
53 per cent, indicated a practice of annual composite evaluation fOr
probationary teachers (see Table 17). There was no differentiation
by Student population category.

Forty of the 96 reporting districts, representing 42 per cent,
indicated a practice of annual composite evaluation for tenure
teachers (see Table 18). There is no apparent pattern by population
size. The lower percentage reported in the tenure teacher category
reflects earlier reported data concerning frequency of evaluation fer

tenure teachers.

103

 

 

me on Hecom H5055 Hchee HNchm H5000

 

> >H HHH HH H

 

ucooHoa momeommom
ouHmoneou HquH mOHHomoueu :oHueHodoa

 

.005 odeHOOHOH eH vouHomoH .mHonoeou OHseou Hem :oHumsHe5o OpHmOHEoo He=::<--.0H 000<5

 

 

 

0m HoH He05c Hevmn HeNan Hmvae H5000
ueooHom noncommom > >H HHH HH H
ouHmooaou Hooch

mOHHomoueu :oHueHodOd

 

.005 owoucoOHOH 0H vopHOdOH .mHOnooou 5HeeoHuapOHH Hem :OHuwsHe>o ouHmOHEOO Heaee<tu.5H 000<5

104

Toacher Initiated Request for
Evaluation

 

All reporting districts (103) indicated that probationary
teachers can request more frequent evaluations.

Ninety-five of the 96 reporting districts responded that
tenure teachers can request more frequent evaluations.

Administrative Prerogative to Initiate
Evaluation Process

 

 

 

Ninety-nine of the 102 responding districts, representing 97
per cent, reported that the administration retains the prerOgative
to initiate the evaluation process for probationary teachers when
considered feasible.

Ninety-Six of the 97 reporting districts, representing 99 per
cent, indicate that the administration retains the right to initiate

the evaluation process fer tenure teachers.

Purposes of Teacher Evaluation

 

Present Purposes of Teacher Evaluation (see Table l9).--
Administration of Salary Increases

AS a group the collective mean is reported as 3.59, reflecting
little importance. Districts in categories I, II and III tend to
view this area as less important than districts in categories IV

and V, although the differences are not significant.

 

Determine Retention or Discharge
The composite mean of 1.28 reveals this to be a priority

item in all pOpulation categories.

105

 

 

.HOHumsHe>O mo momomHsm HoovH u 0

.coHpasHm>O Ho memomHsm peomon u < Houoz

0H.H 00.H 00.H 00.H 0N.H 00.H 0H.H 00.H 0H.H 00.H 5H.H 5H.H meHvemumHovas
-mHom oo5oHdso 0H<
HH.H 0H.H 00.H 5H.H 0H.H H0.H 00.H 00.H 0H.H 00.H 5H.H 0N.H meadow OHscou OeHEHouoo

N0.H N0.H 5H.H 50.H 0H.H 05.H 50.H 00.N 0N.H 00.H 50.H 0H.N meeHmoHn
nusoHu HeconmOMOHd

H0.H 00.N 5H.H 50.H 5N.H 00.H 00.H HH.N 50.H NH.N 00.H 00.N HOHHOEOHA
Hem eoHueoHe>m

HH.H 0H.H 5H.H 00.H 00.H 0H.H HH.H HN.H HH.H 0N.H 00.H 5H.H ouceEHomHom
mo eonmsomH0

0H.H 0N.H 00.H 00.H 0H.H N0.H 0H.H 0N.H HH.H 0N.H 0N.H 00.H omHenomHv
Ho cOHHHOHOH OeHEHouoo

00.H 00.0 00.H 00.0 05.H 00.0 00.N 00.0 H0.H 00.0 00.N 50.0 momeoHocH
5HwHem mo :oHuaHuchHeu<

0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 <
mHOHHumHo
HH< > >H HHH HH H

 

omoaHnd
undo: ouHmoanu 5Hououeu :oHueH3000

 

.umoann NHHOH H suHa euH mo OHeOm .mceoa :H onHOAOH .eoHuest>o mo momomHod OHHmomaou--.0H 000<5

106

Discussion of Performance

 

The composite mean of 1.19 reveals that all categories consider

this to be important.

Evaluation for Promotion

Collectively, the mean of 2.09 indicates this purpose is con-
sidered to have some importance. A surprising difference by
population categories is revealed in that larger districts (IV
and V) place greater emphasis on this purpose of evaluation than

do other population categories.

Professional Growth Programs

The composite reported mean of 1.92 reveals this area to be
of some importance. Larger districts, categories IV and V,
perceive this area to be slightly more important than do smaller

districts.

Determine Tenure Status

 

The collective reported mean of 1.13 indicates that this item
is of major importance and is universally perceived as such by

all pOpulation categories.

Aid Employees Self-Understanding
The reported collective mean of 1.45 indicates that this is
a priority area and is considered as such in all population cate-

gories.

 

107

Ideal Purposes of Evaluation (see Table l9).--
Administration of Salary_1ncreases

The composite response indicating a mean of 1.96 indicates
that reporting districts consider this area to be of some im-
portance. Districts in categories IV and V place slightly more

importance to this purpose than do categories I, II and III.

Determine Retention or Discharg£_
This purpose is perceived by all categories as an important

function with a mean of 1.14.

Discussion of Performance
This purpose is perceived by all categories as an important

function showing a mean of 1.11.

Evaluation for Promotion

 

All categories perceive this area as considerably more im-

portant than current practice indicating a mean of 1.51.

Professional Growth Program

 

This area is also perceived by all categories as more important

than current practice reporting a mean of 1.32.

Determine Tenure Status

This area is perceived to rank as important in all pOpulation

categories with a mean of 1.11.

Aid Employees Self-Understanding_
This area is perceived to be important in all population

categories showing a mean of 1.18.

 

108

As a composite, all ideal purposes of evaluation were per-
ceived to be more important than present purposes.

The vast difference between current practice and perceived
importance of administration of salary increases may well reflect the
administrative response to the present controversy in Michigan public
education regarding staff accountability for services rendered.

Under general comments, regarding purposes of evaluation, two
districts emphasize the importance of improving teachers so as to

improve the quality of the instructional program.

Types of Evaluation Instruments

Rating scales and anecdotal techniques are commonly reported
by respondents. Very little utilization is made of rank order,
forced distribution, or paired comparison. The critical incidental
technique is reported in 20 per cent of the total reSpondents (see
Table 20).

A number of districts indicated the use of multiple evaluation
instruments; primarily, anecdotal in combination with rating scales
and/or critical incident. Anecdotal and rating scales are used ex-
tensively by all population categories.

By student population categories, I and 11 make the highest
use of rating scales; categories IV and V the least use of rating
scales. Category 111 reports the highest application of anecdotal
procedures.

Under comments, five districts State that performance objec-

tives have been established for teachers. This practice, while

 

109

 

 

 

In: a I. t. .IIIJJ
0N 0N 0N 0N 0 0N «covHoeH HeOHuHHo
N t t 0 u - cOuHHemeoo 00HH00
05 50 55 N0 00 50 Huuovooe<
H - 0 s u . :oHuanHpmH0 cOOHom
N -- 0 0 t- .. H00H0 0000
H5 cc em 45 55 00 eHeom ueHeeH
ucoOHoa > >H HHH HH H
ouHuodaoo peoESHumcH

mOHHowopmo.coHuwHodom

 

.mOHHowoueo :OHpeHoooa 5n meow: manoeSHpmaH :oHueoHe>o mo med5ets.0N 000<H

110

minimal, is distributed over the range of the respective population
categories and was categorized as follows: (1) Evaluation of specific
teacher behavior patterns. (2) Agreement on teaching objectives by
tenure teachers early in the school year. (3) Goal-setting with
teachers to determine strengths and weaknesses.

From the foregoing data, it is obvious that the much-discussed
concept of joint establishment of specified objectives is not commonly IA
practiced in the school districts of this study.

Spudent Achievement Compared to
District Goals

 

 

 

One district of the 103 reporting, indicates that student
performance or achievement is measured against district established

goals and used in the fermal evaluation process.

Com ensation Based on Merit or
Teacher Performance _

Of the total number of respondents (103) a total of three

 

 

districts in categories IV and V report the presence of staff com-
pensation based on merit or performance. One of these districts
stated that while the administration has the right to make use of an
existing merit rating plan, this right is not exercised. The types
of compensation practices utilized by the districts reporting the
existence of such a program took the following forms: no advancement
on schedule, loss of increment, percentage reduction of schedule base,
percentage increase of schedule base, flat amount increase. Some

districts reported multiple compensation practices.

 

111

Clearly, the standard salary schedule is the common practice

in surveyed school districts.

Responsibility for Deve10pment of
Evaludfion Procedures

 

Building principals are perceived to be a major factor in
the development of evaluation procedures and are reported as such in
all population categories (see Table 21). Teachers and superintendents
are reported as approximately equal in respective reSponSibilities for
evaluation procedures, but with lesser responsibility than building
principals. Boards of education are reported as having little re-
sponsibility with consistency across the student population categories.
Parents and Students are reported to have very little reSponSibility
fer development of the evaluation procedures across all population
categories.

From the data reported, it may be assumed that the participa-
tion base for develOpment of evaluation procedures as reflected in the
literature is not currently a wideSpread practice in surveyed schOOls.

Irainin Seooions to Implement
Evaluatlon Procedures

 

 

Fifty-five per cent of the number responding, report that
training sessions have been conducted to better coordinate evaluation
procedures. The responses range from a low of 38 per cent in category
11 to a high of 83 per cent in category V. Some relationship between
the size of the district and the extent of training sessions seems to
exist in that categories IV and V report the highest percentage of

such programs.

112

lllll... 51 I: .

 

 

 

oc.0 00 cm.» 00.0 H0.H 00.0 H5.0 00:80:00
ec.0 05 oe.0 50.0 05.0 0e.0 H5.0 nuanced
50.H Ha o0.H 00.H oo.N oo.5 05.H nHeHoeeH
HH.H me 5H.H 0c.H 0H.H 5H.H 05.H nHeHHoeHea ueHeHHem
00.H 50H 5H.H 0e.5 00.H e0.H 50.H HeeceoucHHoHam
05.5 we 00.N oo.0 50.N e0.N 00.0 eeHueuaem 0o venom
0:00: 000005000 > >H HHH HH H :OHpHmoa
ouH0Odaou H0005 moHHowoueu cOHuaHsdoa

 

.5HHHHHH0HOH00H u0oueoH0 0cHucomeHHOH H nqu
0-H oHeom "00005 :H wouHOdoH moHovoOOHd :oH003H0>o HO HausdoHo>ov Hem 5HHHH0H0HOH000--.HN 000<H

113

Despite significant problems which can arise from the presence
of rater error in the evaluation process, as reported in the review of
the literature, and the need fer evaluating consistency to negate this
effect, a large segment (45 per cent) of surveyed districts report

little emphasis in this area.

Sources of Training Procedures

Analysis of the composite means reveals that local school dis-
tricts depend primarily upon their own resources for resource help
(see Table 22). This practice is common among all population cate-
gories. Other sources of training are perceived to be of little
importance to the carrying out of this function.

The relative absence of cooperative programs designed to
utilize expertise from a variety of resources would appear to be a
serious handicap to the institution and maintenance of effective

evaluation programs.

General Comments

 

The general question was posed at the conclusion of Section I
soliciting comments regarding factors which tended to enhance or
inhibit teacher evaluation programs in school districts. Comments
have been categorized and reported in Table 23. A total of thirty-one
school districts made comments regarding factors which enhance or
retard teacher evaluation prOgrams.

NO attempt was made to analyze these data statistically except
to arrange comments in rank order by frequency count. Some Observa—

tions are appropriate, however:

 

114

 

 

 

00.0 00 00.0 50.0 00.0 00.N 05.N 0HOHH00H0 H0cpo HHH:
0pHommm 0>Hu0Homoou

05.0 ms 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.5 meoHueeHcemeo
H0eoH00omOHd

50.0 00 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.N HOHHHOH0
Hoosow 000H005H000H

50.H ee as.» 05.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 neueeom HHHnHo>He=
HO\0H0 000HHou

0e.0 Ne o0.» 00.0 He.0 oo.e 00.5 nccHueNHcemeo
Hc0uHs0cou 0005000002

H0.H H0 0N.H 05.H 0N.H NN.H 0N.H HOHH00H0
Hoocom H0000 :Hssz

> >H HHH HH H
0000: 000:0d000 ouHsom
00H0OHEOU H0005 00HHouou0u eOHH0HSHOH

 

etH 0H0O0 H0000e 0H 000H0500

.u:050>HO>cH 000:0H: 00H00000H00H H HHH:
.00H30000Hd :OHH05H0>0 peoaoHneH Op NcHeH0HH mo 000H300--.NN mH0<H

115

TABLE 23.--Enhancing and retarding factors in teacher evaluation
programs arranged in rank order.

 

 

 

 

Enhancing Factors Frequency
Teacher attitude and involvement 3
Joint administrative and teacher team to review and
revise evaluation procedures 1
Local administrative workshops to improve
evaluation skills 1
System-wide performance criteria 1
Tenure law 1
Retarding Factors Frequency
Collective bargaining 8
Lack of instrumentation or SOphistication 8
Shortcomings of principal 8
Shortage of administrative staff 5
Threatening nature of evaluation 5
Adversary nature of evaluation 2
Tenure law 2
Low priority 1
No assistance from university sources 1

 

116

l. The total number Of retarding factors reported outnumbered

enhancing factors 38 to 7.

2. Collective bargaining, lack of instrumentation and principal

short-comings were the most frequently reported retarding

factors.

3. Of the limited number of enhancing factors mentioned, teacher

attitudes ranked highest.

Professional Growth Programs

1oportance of Professional Growth
PrOgrams

The composite fOr all districts revealed a mean of 1.36
indicating a relatively high degree of importance.

There was no substantial variation among the population cate-
gories in the perception of professional growth programs as a school

district responsibility (see Table 24).

TABLE 24.--Opinion regarding importance of staff professional growth
prOgrams as a school district responsibility; reported in

means-scale of 1-4 with 1 representing highest reSponSi-
bility.

 

Population Categories
I II III IV V Composite

1.50 1.38 1.31 1.31 1.50 1.36

 

 

117

Availability o§_Professional Growth
Activities or Services

From the data reported, professional growth activities and
services generally are made available on an equal basis to both pro-
bationary and tenure teachers (see Table 25). The exceptions to this
statement are in the areas of sabbatical leave and summer curriculum
planning, where these practices apply more frequently to tenure
teachers. Conversely, pre-school year orientation programs are re-

ported more frequently for probationary teachers.

Professional Growth Activities or
Services_§overnedby Master
COntract ProVisiOns

Professional growth activities are not extensively reported
under master contract provisions (see Table 26). Only sabbatical
leaves and curriculum study committees reflect an inclusion rate of
50 per cent or higher. Summer curriculum planning and Saturday work-
shOps are reported more frequently to be directly related to district
size as are released time for teacher planning and sabbatical leaves,

Larger districts V showed more of a tendency to cover in-district

curriculum consultants under master contracts than smaller districts.

Professional Growth Activities

Resultin in Additional Com-
pensation (see TaEle 27)

Summer and Saturday workshops were reported more frequently
in larger districts (IV and V). Elementary and secondary department
chairmen were reported more frequently in larger districts

(IV and V).

“—1

 

118

 

 

0 0 0 050:0HH03 0:00H0Hu 5uH>HuH0000
0 H0 00 00:0qu0coo estoHHHso HOHHH0HutcH
NH HN 0H uHuoHo H0>0H5
0H 05 05 00HH0H0HH H0HOH00000H0
00 H0 00 :oHp0ue0HHo H005 HOOHO0I0H0
v NN NN 000:0HH03 500Hap00
0N H5 N5 cOHu0oav0 00H>H00ucH How 00000000 mo H000H50H0
0 N0 00 mcHec0Hn 55H00HHH30 Hosesm
00 05 00 0>00H H0oHu0np0m
50 00 00 0=HHH0H0 H0:o000 How 05H» 00000H00
«N 00 00 000omHsd HHOEQOH0>00 mm0u0 How 000Hu0oe 00000
0H H0 50 003 HOHHGHHO an 385 030030-50
HH 00 N5 0000 HOHHumHv 00 0HH0H> HOHHH0HuteH
5 N5 05 00:00Hs0coo 00H0Hso
00 00 00 00000Hssoo 50:00 asHsoHHqu
00 00 N0 omconxo HOHHH0H0 00 0000000000 00:0Homeou
uo0Hueou H0000: 0H3005 5H0HOHH0HOH0 5HH>Huo<

 

.005 000HHOOH00 :H 00HHOHOH .0H0so0ou OH 0H00HH0>0 000H>H00 HO 00HHH>HHO0 sponm H0HOH00OHOH0tt.0N mHm<H

119

 

 

 

 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0aon0xHoa NHHHH0HH 5HH>HHH0=00
0 00 0 0 0 0 00:00Hsmcoo esHsuHHHso HOHHpmHvteH
NH 5H 0H 0 0H 5H «HvoHo H0>0HH
0H 5H 0 0H 0H 0 00HH0H0HH H0eoH00omOH0
00 00 0N 0N 50 5H cOHu0ucoHHo H005 Hoo:O0-0H0
0 0 0 0H 0 0 mnonmxHoa 500Hsu00
0N 00 00 0H H0 0 :oHu0onvo 00H>H00HH Hem 00:00:00 mo H000H50H0
0 00 0 0H 0 0 weHee0Hm 55H00HHH30 Hoeasm
00 00H 55 00 00 00 0>00H H0OHH00000
5H. 2 H0 2 2 2 050020 .8503 .80 95... 008200
0N 00 00 0N 5H 5H 000OdHam ueoadoH0>00 00000 Hem 00=Hu00e 00000
0H 0 0H 0H 0N 5H «000 HOHHHOH0 H0 00HOH> HOHHHOHvtpso
0H 0 0H 0H 0 5H «moo uuHHuuHu 00 00H0H> HOHH00H0-0H
5 5H 0 0H 0 0 0He0pHsmeoo 00H0uoo
00 00 H0 00 H0 0 moouuHesou 50:00 esHsuHHHsu
00 50 00 00 50 00 00:05x0 HOHHH0H0 00 0000000000 00:0Homcoo

u=0OH00 > >H HHH HH H 50

00H0oonu H>Huo<

00HHomou0u :OHH0H0noa

 

.005 0000:00H09

0H v0uHOm0H .0:OH0H>OH0 uo0Hueoo H0000a 5p voeH0>om 000H>H00 HO 5HH>HHO0 HHSOHm H0coH000MOHdnt.0N mqm<h

120

TABLE 27.--Professiona1 growth activities resulting in additional

 

 

 

compensation.
Activity Percent
Graduate credit above B.A. level 87
Sabbatical leave 67
Secondary department chairmanship 57
Summer workshops 34
Tuition payment 28
After school hours workshops 27
Pre-school year orientation 20
Saturday workshops 16
Elementary grade level chairmanship 11

Travel credit 10

 

 

 

121

Instructional or Curriculum
Policies Council

 

 

The existence of instructional or curriculum policy councils
was indicated by 73 per cent of the respondents. There was little
variation among the population categories in this regard.

Of those districts having councils, 49 per cent were regu-
lated by the teacher master contract. By population categories, I
was lowest with 22 per cent and category II highest with 67 per
cent. District size did not appear to be a factor in governance of
instructional councils by master contract.

Additional compensation was paid for council membership in
11 per cent of the reporting districts. District size did not appear
to be a factor in payment for council participation.

Reported Functions of
Instructional Councils

 

 

l. Clearing house for ideas--95 per cent

2. Standards and criteria for staff development--36 per cent

3. Deve10pment and implementation of professional growth

activities-~52 per cent

4. Evaluation of staff development and professional growth

activities-~29 per cent

It would appear that reported functions of instructional

councils place strong emphasis upon the clearing house concept with

 

122

a rather minimal involvement in evaluating the results of professional
growth activities.

Participation in Operation of

Instructional Councils

From Table 28, it can be seen that teachers and building
principals are perceived to have the highest degree of participation
in instructional councils, reporting means of 1.24 and 1.33, respec-
tively. Superintendents are reported as a composite group to have a
mean of 2.34. Parents and students represent the lowest degree of
participation with means of 3.10 and 3.19, respectively.

By population categories, superintendents, building principals
and teachers appear to have consistency in degree of participation.
However, parent involvement shows a wide range extending from a mean
of 2.14 in population category I, to 3.50 in category V. A range
from 2.20 in category I to 3.65 in category III is revealed for stu-
dent participation. Apparently, students and teachers have a
greater opportunity for involvement in small enrollment districts.
Administrative Responsibility,h

Devoted to Professional Growt
Activities Lsee Table 29)

From the composite, those administrative positions reported
as having the highest proportion of work responsibility in pro-
fessional growth activities include: associate superintendent or
director of instruction, director of elementary education, directory

of secondary education, director of inservice education, building

 

123

 

 

 

 

0H.0 5v 0N.0 05.N 00.0 00.0 00.N 00000000
0H.0 H0 00.0 05.N 00.0 00.0 0H.N 0000000
00.H H5 00.H 00.H 0H.H 0H.H 0N.H 00000000
00.0 mm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 0000000000 0:00H0sm
00.0 50 00.N HH.0 00.N 0H.N 0H.N 00000000000000
0000: 00000o00m > >H HHH H0 0

0000omaou H00o0 0o0000o0

0000o0000u 0o000H=0o0

 

.0000000000000 0000000 000000000000 H 0003 0-H 0H000 “00000 00 0000o00m
.0H0o0soo H00o00o=00000 0o 000000000 000 00 0o00000000000 000000 000 00HH00000om0003-.0m mgm<0

124

 

 

 

0H 0H 55 - 00 50 «H u 00 . 0H 00 «a HH 5o 00 o 50 .000< .0Hnfi<
00 0H 00 . 00H - 00H . . 0H 5H 50 00 - 00 00H . . 000000300
000>000-0~ 00 .000
0 00 N0 . co ow 0 00 00 0 H0 00 0 H0 00 o 00 00 0Hanuu0H0m 0000H020
HH 00 00 - 00 00 mn 00 mm NH 00 00 a 00 00 u 00H . .00 .000 00 .000
HH ov me u 00 00 «N 00 an 0H 00 50 - 0m 05 u ooH - .00 .aUHm 00 .000
N 00 00 - - 00H o 00 05 o 00 Ho . «H on - 00H n ~000000om 00 .000
00 .0000 .000<
0H 50 on . 0N 05 0N 00 00 OH 00 H0 0 00 cc 00 u 00 .0000" 00 .000
00 .0000 .002
0 on Ho - 0m 05 - ON 00 5 50 on n - 00H s 00H . .0930 .uonn<
- 0H 00 - - 00H - 0H 00 - 0H 00 - o 00 - 0 00 00000000000030
H-0\~ 0\~-0\H 0\H-0 H-0\u 0\~.0\H 0\H-0 H.0\N 0\~.0\H 0\H.0 H-0\N 0\N-0\H 0\~-0 H.0\~ 0\~.0\H 0\H-0 H.0\~ 0\~-0\H 0\H-0 00000000

000noalou

>

>0

~00

an

H

 

00o000au 0o000Hsnom 00 00000000000000 00 000000

 

.00000000000 00 0000ono0 .0000H>0000 00:00» H00000000o0n 00 000o>00 x00H0000000000 o>000000000000 0o 0o000ono0mu-.0« man<h

125

principals. All of the preceding are specialized positions with the
exception of building principals. This pattern is quite consistent

across all pOpulation categories.

Responsibility for DeveloPing
Professional Growth Activities

(see Table 30) P
,

In terms of greatest involvement, school district adminis-

trators and teaching staff are reported as having the greatest re-

 

sponsibility for developing professional growth activities with means _j
of 1.14 and 1.67, respectively. Parents and students are reported to '7
have very little responsibility in this area, with reported means of
3.40 and 3.59 for elementary and 3.42 for secondary students.
There is consistency across all population categories with
respect to the preceding pattern. However, category I indicates more
participation on the part of parents and students than is reported in
other population categories.
Responsibility fOr Administrating_

District Professional;arowth
Activities (see Table 31)

 

 

 

School district administrators and secondary department

chairmen are reported to have the greatest responsibility reporting

means of 1.10 and 1.96 respectively. Boards of education have little
responsibility in this area (3.37) as do parents (3.79) and students
(3.83 and 3.73). There is consistency across all population cate-

gories with regard to this function.

 

126

 

 

 

 

.nnnwr. .ammu_

Ne.» no ao.n om.» mm.» 00.» 0m.~ nxuaeeouomv «0000300

mm.n 00 00.0 om.n mo.» no.0 co.» nxnapeoso0ou mpeoespm

ow.» we on.» oo.n nm.n mo.m om.~ museum;

00.0 «a 00.0 N0.H 00.0 mm.” 00.0 mmmpm 0:0:ua00

mm.0 m0 00.0 em.0 00.0 mo.~ 00.0 eosu0mnu
0000000000 000000000

00.0 00 m~.N om.~ 00.N om.0 oo.~ eoeu0agu Ho>og oeaau

«0.0 ~00 00.H m0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .e0ee< 0u000m00 Hoogom

mm.~ «a o~.n N¢.N 00.0 00.0 oa.~ eo0uaueem mo canon

0000: m0m000mom > >0 000 00 0

000000500 00009 00000000

0000000000 0000000000

 

.00000000000000 00000000 000000000000 0 0003 0.0 00000
"m0eoa 00 00000000 00000>00oe 003000 0e000mmomo00 00000m0v M00m00o>oc 0cm 0000000m0o0m00--.0n 000<0

127

 

 

 

 

00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000000 00000000
00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000000000 00000000
00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000
«0.0 00 00.0 on." 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00000000
00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000

0000000000 000000000
00.N me 00.N 00.N 00.N 00.0 00.0 00000000 00>00 00000
00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0000< 00000000 000000
00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000000 00 00000
0000: 000000000 > >0 000 00 0 00000000

000000000 00000

0000000000 0000000000

 

.00000000000000 00000000 000000000000 0 0003 0.0 00000 000000
00 00000000 .00000>0000 003000 000000000000 00000000.w000000000000 000 00000000000000--.00 000<0

 

128

Res onsibilit for Evaluatin
District Professional Growth
Activities (see TaEle 32)

School district administrators (1.20), secondary department
chairmen (1.96), and teaching staff (1.88) have the greatest responsi-
bility for conduct of evaluation of professional growth activities.
Boards of education (2.73) fall into the some to little classifica-

tion. Parents (3.52) and students (3.74 and 3.52) have little

responsibility for evaluating professional growth activities.

Participation Level for Professional
Growth Activities (see—Table 33)

In composite, 19 per cent of reporting districts indicate
that a minimum participation level is established fOr professional
growth activities. Generally there is consistency across the pOpula-
tion categories with the exception of category V where 50 per cent of

those districts reported the existence of such a policy.

 

Plannin With Individual Staff
@emEers Concernin Professional
Growth (see Table 4)

 

 

As a total, 39 per cent of reporting districts indicated that
formalized planning did occur with individual staff members regarding

their professional growth. There was no pattern apparent with

respect to population category, ranging from a low of 24 per cent

in category II, to a high of 83 per cent in category V.

Fm-

129

 

:_LJ

 

 

 

um.n [no ow.» oo.n om.» an.n nm.~ nxpmvcooomv mucopsum
vu.m No oo.v om.» en.m om.n oo.m mxnmucoEoHov mucousuw
~m.n No oo.m ov.m mm.m ow.m ov.~ mucoumm
mm.“ mm mm.“ mm.” um.H oo.~ ma.H mmmom mcmgoaoe
om.H Hm om.H 50.H 00.N wH.N mn.H coshwmco
ucosuuumoo knavaooom
om.m ow ne.~ HH.N mm.m HH.N om.“ coeuwmnu Ho>oa opaau
o~.H mm BH.~ mH.H vH.H mm.H mo.H .cwap< powupmfla Hoogom
mn.~ ow ov.~ nu.~ mn.m nu.~ wn.m :ofiumospm mo wagon
> >H HHH HH H
memo: momcoamom :OMufimom
oufimomaou Hence mowaowouau cowpmasmom

 

.xuwawnwmcoamon uncanny» mcaucomouoou H no“: e-H onom
”memos a“ popnomou momuw>wuou guzohw Hmcowmmomopa powuumfip wcfiumsfim>o new xuwawpwmconmomun.mn mgm<h

130

TABLE 33.--Minimum participation level for professional growth
activities; reported in percentage yes.

 

Population Categories

 

Composite
I II III IV V

 

8 16 22 17 SO 19

 

re .A-— _ ADI-T.

 

(I.

TABLE 34.-~Formal planning with staff members for professional growth
purposes; reported in percentage yes.

 

Population Categories

 

Composite
I II III IV V

 

58 24 37 46 83 39

 

 

131

figsponsibility for Plannin Pro-
fessional Growth Activities With
Individual Teachers

 

 

The building principal is reported to play a major role in
helping individual teachers to plan for their professional growth
(see Table 35). The composite means for both professional colleagues
and central administrative staff show a relatively high degree of D
involvement on the part of both groups. While the general level of
reported involvement is high, it must be remembered that reSponses :

incorporated in this table were made only by districts indicating

 

the presence of a program for individual staff counseling regarding
their professional growth. In this context, the expected response
would be higher in value.

Release of Students fer Conduct of

5i§tri¢t‘PrOfessionaliErOWth
Activities (See Table 36)

 

 

 

The data show consistency between elementary and secondary
departments regarding number of days fbr professional growth
activities reporting means of 1.87 and 1.81, respectively. There is

little variation across respective population categories.

Sources of Professional Growth
Activities (see Tabie 37)

 

 

Local school districts are reported as the prime source of

professional growth activities with a mean of 1.24. Intermediate

school districts reported a median of 1.92. Most of the other sources

132

w.
. -Wlfi.J
LIE]: In. , . I

 

 

 

 

 

Hm.H mm mw.H om.H 00.H mo.~ 50.H snaecouom
nm.~ em 00.H oo.H om.H oo.~ mm.H xnmucoEoflm
> >H HHH mm H
mcwoz momcoamom
ouwmanou Hench unoEuhanoa

mofinomouau :ofipwflaaom

. mGwOE

cw wouponoe .mofiuw>wuow nuzonm Hmcowmmomoen powhumfiv pom vommoflou mucopaum mxmw mo Hopasz--.om mqm<e

 

 

 

o~.~ on o~.~ oe.~ “H.~ NH.N o~.~ mosmaoaaou.
Hmcowmmomoum
as.“ me o~.H nn.H oo.H NN.H mN.H Hmamueupa usuefimsm
e~.m mm oo.~ mm.“ n~.~ on.~ 50.N mmapm
o>muaupmmamee< Hauucou
memo: momcoamox > >H HHH HH H
enamonaou Heuoh cowuwmom
mofiuomoueu coauamsnom

 

.xufimwpfimconmou umouwohm unwucomohnou H saw: v-” oawom “memos a“
vouuomou .muonuwou Hespw>wpca an“: mowufi>wuoe nusohw geneammomona mafiaqmfln pom xufiflfinfimconmomcu.mn mam<b

 

 

 

 

'elrixl’l. Iii] |ll|| l

133

 

 

 

 

Lu! .. {bl

Hm.m Hm mm.~ nu.~ om.~ Hm.» ve.~ ucosmoaomam 3“;

nm.~ om mn.~ om.~ wm.~ mo.~ oe.~ mumsmwanzm
xoopuxob Hmcowumuspm

om.” ow mn.n mm.” we.~ oo.m He.~ mcofipenmcamao
amcowmmomopm

No.H mm NH.N NN.H mm.~ mm.H 00.N powuumwa
Hoonom ouawvoenoucH

on.~ mo 00.N mm.~ mN.N oe.~ om.~ spfimno>wca
uo\p:m omoHHou
mm.m on n~.m um.m ma.» vv.m mw.m mucmpasmcou ucoeommcmz
v~.H NOH 5H.H nN.H a~.H Hn.H wH.fl powhumwa Hoosom Hmooa

memo: momcoamom > >H HHH HH H oopsom
ouwmomsou Hench

mownowoueu :owuaasaoa

 

.ucoso>Ho>cw pneumonm
msfiucomoumou H new: qu mo oHaum "mofiufi>wuoe sysopm Hmcofimmomonn cm mooezom mo ucoao>fio>cm--.nm mam<p

134

would be categorized in the some to little classification with the
exception of management consultants who are considered to have the
least involvement in professional growth activities (3.25). There
appears to be consistency across all population categories in terms
of the reported composite means.

Success of Professional Growth
ProgramIsee Table 38)

 

In composite, the large majority of reporting districts
indicated some success with respect to professional growth program.
It is pertinent to note that population categories I and IV report
the highest percentage of little success showing 17 and 23 per cent

respectively.

General Comments

 

 

Enhancing and Retarding_Factors in Professional Growth Pro-
g£§m§,--The general question was posed at the conclusion of Section II
soliciting comments regarding factors which tended to enhance or
retard professional growth programs in school districts. Comments
have been categorized and reported in Table 39. A total of thirty-
fbur school districts made comments regarding factors which enhance
or retard professional growth programs. No attempt was made to
analyze these data statistically except to arrange comments in rank
order by frequency count. Some observations are appropriate, however:

1. The total of retarding factors reported outnumber enhancing

factors by 50 to 15.

 

135

III: in- c a“ Lr.. my

 

 

 

HH o mm 0 NH 5H oHuuHH
Hm ooH me an mm mm 030m
m o m 3 ... o fie:
> >H HHH HH H
ouHmOQEOU

mloomoumu :oHueHnnom

 

.mox oueuaoouom :H vouhomoh .msenuoun apzonm Heconmomoum mo «mooosm--.mn mam<e

136

TABLE 39.-~Enhancing and retarding factors in professional growth

prOgrams, arranged in rank order.

 

 

 

 

 

Enhancing Factors Frequency
Teacher attitude 5
Administrative attitude 4
Board of Education attitude 1
Collective bargaining 1
Community school program 1
Shared decision-making 1
Total involvement of staff in inservice l
Video-tape analysis of teaching performance 1
Retarding Factors Frequency
Lack of money 14
Collective bargaining 13
Negative teacher attitude 8
Lack of time 5
State regulations of 180 membership days 4
Administrative attitude 1
Little interaction between administration and teachers 1
Staff lives outside community 1
Teacher fatigue after full-day of work 1
Teachers secure, management not 1
Tenure laws prevent healthy competition 1
Time consuming 1

 

 

137

Lack of funds and collective bargaining implications were

the most reported retarding factors.

Eight districts mentioned teacher attitude as a retarding
factor, yet five districts (which was the highest enhancing
factor) considered teacher attitude to be enhancing to pro-

fessional growth programs. I
1

Some relationship may exist among the identified retarding

factors of time, l80-day membership requirement, and collec-

 

tive bargaining, which could make the future consideration P)

of these areas important to the subject of this study.

 

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND FUTURE RESEARCH $5

The summary of the study includes a brief review of the pur~

-afga _

pose, design, objectives and a discussion of the major findings.

 

'I... 4:1:
'4

Conclusions are based on the results and discussion of the findings.

Lastly, suggestions are presented for future research.

The Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the study was to accommodate three functions:
(1) to survey the current practices in teacher evaluation and pro-
fessional growth programs in selected Michigan school districts; (2)
to compare these two personnel management functions to the literature
in these areas; (3) to suggest practices and procedures in teacher
evaluation and professional growth programs which could enhance the

quality of surveyed programs.

The Designof the Study_

 

The Population

 

The total number of K-12 public school districts within

the intermediate school districts of Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston,

138

139

Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne comprised the popu-

lation of the study.

The Instruments

 

The principal source of data collection was a mailed question-
naire soliciting infermation from public school districts regarding
teacher evaluation and professional growth programs. !

Personal interviews were also conducted with central adminis-

trative officers of sixteen School districts to supplement data from

 

the mailed questionnaires. E

Procedure for Data Collection and

Analysis

A survey questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter
describing the rationale fer the study and requesting the participa-
tion of public school superintendents. A total response rate of
80.3 per cent was received. Data were analyzed by student population
categories and were reflected primarily through the use of means and

percentages.

The Objectives of the Study
The overall objectives of the study were: To compare
selective personnel management practices in Michigan public schools:
Review the literature base attendant to the surveyed functions:
Determine the current status of selected personnel management practices;

make recommendations for possible implementation by school districts.

 

140

Major Findings

 

The building principal is perceived as the key administrator

with regard to: conduct of staff evaluation, the development

 

of evaluation_procedures, proportion of work role devoted
to evaluation and staff professionalgrowth activities,
pgrticipation in instructional or curriculum councils,
develppment, administration and evaluation of districtppro-
fessionalgrowth activities, and responsibility to assist

individual teachers in planningpprofessional growth progpams.

Teacher evaluation practices in school districts surveyed have
been primarily developed by administration and teachers. The

participation of students and parents is consistently low.

The conduct of teacher evaluation is primarily the responsi-
bility of the building principal. Teachers have little re-
SponSibility fOr teacher evaluation. Students and parents

have almost no part in the process.

Perceived responsibility fOr teacher evaluation reflects the
principal as the major evaluating agent with a substantial
movement towards greater teacher participation. The intent
to have greater participation on the part of students and

parents is also clearly indicated.

Substantial differences exist concerning frequency of evalua-
tion when tenure and probationary groups are compared. Only

51 per cent reporting districts evaluated tenure teachers

 

 

 

 

 

'II II. III]. III.

J.‘I||Ii i II||1<

141

annually or more frequently. This disparity, when compared to
the literature which strongly recommends continuous evalua-

tion, stands out in bold relief.

Districts are consistent when present purposes of evaluation
are compared with ideal purposes, with the exception that
school districts place a high value on the administration

of salary increases as an ideal purpose of evaluation.
Present practice places administration of salary increases

as the lowest of all evaluation purposes. This perception

 

is probably associated with the finding that 3 districts
of the total of 100 reporting, indicated the existence of a

type of merit rating or teacher perfOrmance plan.

Rating scales as an evaluation instrument are extensively
used (composite 73 per cent) although less frequently in
larger districts. The contrast between practice and the
literature Opinion that rating scales are an inadequate eval-

uative tool is apparent.

Formalized training sessions to orient administrators with
evaluation techniques and procedures are reported in 55 per
cent of the districts when taken as a composite. The con-
trast with the literature base which urges continuous, effec-
tive administrator orientation to evaluative procedures is
again apparent. Larger districts, however, did show higher

participation in reported administration training programs.

10.

11.

12.

142

The prime sources fur administrative evaluation procedures
occur within the local school districts, with cooperative
efforts involving other school districts next in importance.
The limited use of resources from colleges and universities,
intermediate districts, management consultant organizations
and professional organizations again sharply contrasts with
the literature recommending multiple sources for maximum

administration effectiveness in the evaluation process.

The development, administration and evaluation of district
professional growth activities is primarily administrator-
teacher centered. Parents and students play a very minor

role in these functions.

Widespread presence of the staff counseling concept designed
to aid professional growth does not exist as an administrator
responsibility. Neither is evidence feund to verify that the
teacher peer group portrays a significant role in the

counseling process.

The difficulties of providing time and financial resources for
inservice training programs appears to be a significant
limiting factor in implementation of these programs. Numerous
comments were offered concerning the restrictive current
financial climate and bleak future prospects. The time factor
also appears to be associated with collective bargaining

ramifications.

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

143

Instructional Councils charged with the staff development
function play a major role regarding the "clearing house"
concept for consideration of innovative concepts, but a
minor role in evaluating staff development and professional

growth activities.

Public school districts primarily utilize local resources for
on-going professional growth activities, although the degree
of involvement fur other sources is considerably higher than

indicated under the teacher evaluation section.

Very little information was reported to conclude that the
teaching process and teacher responsibility for same have as
yet been defined in specific terms for evaluation of the

attainment of learning objectives.

District merit rating systems are almost non-existent in

reporting schools.

Conclusions

 

Current teacher evaluation practices in reporting Michigan
schools, considered as a total, do not approach the levels of
sophistication suggested in the literature, with regard to
teaching performance criteria, participatory development and
conduct of evaluation procedures, frequency of observation

and evaluation, and types of evaluation instruments.

.‘x MI

‘ .v .‘
ll ’- -. '

 

 

If

 

144

Building principals are determinant factors in the on-going
operational activities related to teacher evaluation and
professional growth activities and programs. Faced with a
perceived, comprehensive reSponSibility, yet with inadequate
time and resources with which to cope with these complex and
persistent demands, it would appear that building principals
will literally be forced into some extensive revisions of

current staff development practices.

The present financial condition of many Michigan school
districts does not permit an unqualified recommendation to

expend more funds for teacher evaluation and professional

growth programs. What is more important is the philosophical

commitment to the importance of these areas and their perti-
nence to what ultimately occurs in the student-teacher
relationship. Re-ordering of priorities may have positive

effects on the structure of individual districts.

Central office administrators obviously have a vital role in
creating and maintaining the supportive climate necessary to

encourage building principals to re-order time priorities.

The existence of job descriptions, Specifically defined
teaching objectives and responsibility for performance are
not a major factor in current teacher evaluation programs in

surveyed districts.

 

 

l. in " Add“:
‘uL'i-t '.

 

145

It is concluded that receptivity does exist on the part of
reporting superintendents to widen the participation base fOr
the development and conduct of evaluation procedures. In this
regard, reference is made to the role of teachers in developing
and implementing procedures for surveyed areas. It also seems
apprOpriate that the direct recipient of the educational 9
process, the student, has some input into the conduct of the 1 “
function: The degree of involvement of students in the

process is, of course, dependent upon the establishment of

 

goals, objectives and patterns of operation prior to imple- LJ

mentation.

Recommendations for School Districts

 

Central office administrators should assess carefully school
district priorities regarding commitment to more compre-
hensive evaluation and professional growth programs as
integral to staff development. The need to provide oppor-
tunities for a greater share in development and implementation
procedures; to mutually determine teaching goals, to imple-
ment more adequate evaluation instruments; to place more
emphasis on the job performed by the teachers; all should

receive serious attention from central office administrators.

The need to create meaningful and legitimate integration of
the surveyed areas, teacher evaluation and professional growth
programs is most apparent. Repeated references present the

picture of teacher evaluation as a process which is done "to"

 

 

 

 

a

146

the teacher rather than a process which encourages the teacher
to become a partner in the preparation of teaching responsi-
bilities, subsequently followed by joint assessment of progress
toward these outlined objectives.

Until such time as teacher evaluation practices reflect a
reordering of these procedures, improved staff competencies
will not result from the evaluation prOgrams but occur as
isolated phenomena. Public school districts would be well
served to recognize this dichotomy and to reaffirm through

persistent analysis the concept of staff development through

 

evaluation.

 

An obvious discrepancy exists in practice regarding the ex-
pression of the literature base urging the formation of
specific teaching objectives designed to measure the job per—
fgpmgg_by the teacher rather than the teacher as an individual.
Results of this study indicate a very limited development of
specified teaching objectives with a consequent effect of
perpetuating current evaluation errors. School district
officials can make a significant contribution to improved
employee development programs by focusing attention on defi-

nition and description of job performance.

School districts should consider the feasibility of expanding
the participatory base upon which decisions are made regarding

teacher evaluations and professional growth programs. The

- “I Bane—w

 

147

relatively meager responses indicating involvement by parents
and students in surveyed functions represents a loss of

potentially helpful expertise.

Inasmuch as the data suggest strongly that building princi-

pals are an integral part of most reported activities within
the surveyed areas, it is apparent that effectiveness at the I...
building principal level is a prerequisite to meaningful staff

developmental prOgrams. The abilities of the building

 

principal undoubtedly serve as a prime factor in the imple-

 

mentation of most of the considerations which have been pre-
sented. Those administrators charged with employment reSponsi-
bilities, should recognize that a substantial proportion of
the building principal's work day is concerned with staff
development. Without a philosophical commitment by building
principals to this reality, and the attendant expertise to

seek alternative solutions to individual staff needs, the
results, in terms of teacher growth and development, may be

disappointing.

The survey indicated that a substantial need exists for co-
ordinated efforts to assist evaluators to perform their tasks
more efficiently and objectively. It would appear that inter-
mediate districts are in the most advantageous position to
sponsor such activities. Successful, joint ventures in other

areas of school operation have been conducted under the

 

If

 

148

auspices of intermediate districts and could provide the
comprehensive resource base not usually available to the local
school district.

Similarly, a comparable function can be served in pro-
fessional growth activities although the data in the study

indicated much more involvement of intermediate districts in n
this area than with evaluation resources. I
H
5

School district administrators and teacher organizations

 

should regard the reported minimal existence of teacher job ' LJ
descriptions, objectives, and reSponSibilities as a matter of =
concern. The emphasis of the public upon standards of account-
ability is likely to continue as a major focus of attention.
The rapprochement of these diverging views would be enhanced
through responsible, forthright, action by professional

groups functioning as initiators of constructive actions

rather than simply recipients of the actions of other groups.

School districts may wish to consider variational types of
accommodation to the existing state regulations which are
perceived by some respondents as limiting to professional
growth activities within the districts. For example, a few
districts reported partial dismissal by: grades, individual

schools, or for a portion of the afternoon classes.

149

Recommendation for Future Research

 

The discrepancy between existing practice and hoped-for
participation in teacher evaluation procedures on the part of
teachers, students and parents may well be a subject for further
analysis in subsequent studies. Identification of those factors
which could help close the gap between district practice and the
literature base could have positive results in enlarging the parti-
cipatory base.

The determination of effects which collective bargaining pro-
visions have on the question of more extensive participation of
teachers, parents and students in the evaluation process would also
be worthy of researchers' efforts.

The perceptions of teachers regarding those enhancing or re-

tarding factors in teacher evaluation and professional growth programs,

could be compared to administrator perceptions. Such a study may
prove of value in terms of possible positive emphasis upon the con-
cept of employee development and need for a participatory approach
to these functions.

The existence of a possible adversary teacher-principal re-
lationship resulting from the implementation of evaluation procedures
as presently operating in these Michigan school districts should be
investigated. Results could have meaning for the creation of alter-
nate strategies fer staff development.

The opinions of building administrators relating their per-

ceptions of the relationships between the concept of staff development
and the evaluation process as a whole. could prove helpful in deter-

mining priorities fbr district attention.

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 

Barr, A. S. Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction of
Teacher Effectiveness. Madison, Wisc.: DeEEar Publications,
Inc., 1961.

 

 

, and Burton, William H. An Introduction to the Scientific
Study_ofClgssroom Sppervision. New York: D. Appleton and*
Company, 1931.

Beach, Dale 8. Personnel, the Management of People at Werk. 2nd ed.
New York: The Macmillan Co., 1975.

 

 

Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research, An
Introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1571.

 

Campbell, Roald, and Gregg, Russell. Administrative Behavior in
Education. New York: Harper and Brothers,

Castetter, William B. The Personnel Function in Educational Adminis-
tration. New York: The Macmillan Company, i371.

Davis, Donald E., and Nickerson, Neal C-. JIN Critical Issues in

School Personnel Administration. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, l§3§.

 

 

Ebel, Robert L. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York:
The Macmillan Company,I§3§ii

 

 

Ecker, Paul H. et a1. Handbook for Su ervisors. 2nd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1575.

French, Wendell. The Personnel Mana ement Process: Human Resources
Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1 7 .

 

Good, Carter N. Dictionary of Education. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-

 

Hill Book Company, 1 .

150

 

 

151

Heald, James E., and Moore, Samuel A. The Teacher and Administrator
Relationshi in Schoolp§ystems. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1958

 

 

Hepner, Harry W., and Pettengil, Frederick B. Percgptive Management
and Supervision. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
nc., l l.

Lucio, William H., and McNeil, John D. Supervision: A Synthesis of
Thought and Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1962.

 

 

 

 

MacKenzie, Gordon N. Develo in and Administerin the Curriculum and
Pupil Services. The Forty-Tourth Yeaiboo o the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1946.

 

Miller, Van. The Public Administration of American School Systems.
New York: The Macmillan Company, IQCSTA

 

Moore, Harold E., and walters, Newell B. Personnel Administration in

 

 

Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1

Pigors, Paul et a1. Management of Human Resources. New York:
McGraw-Hill BoOk Company, 1976.

 

 

Van Zwoll, James A. School Personnel Administration. New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts, 1964.

 

weber, Clarence A. Leadership in Personnel Management in Public
Schools. St. Louis, Mo.: Warren A. Green, Inc., 1975.

 

 

Whitehill, Arthur M. Personnel Relations. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 19 5.

Whitney, Frederick L. The Growth of Teachers in Service. New York:
The Century Company, 1927.

 

Publications of Learned Societies
and Other Opganizations

 

 

American Association of School Administrators. Ipservice Education
for School Administrators. Washington, D.C.: American
Association 6? School Administrators, 1963.

 

American Federation of Teachers. Merit Ratin Dangerous Mirgge or
Master Plan? Chicago: AFL-CIO, 1958.

 

 

 

152

Asher, James J. Inservice Education, Psycholpgical Perspectives.
Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory fer Educafional
Research and Development, December, 1967.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Better Than
Rating. A report prepared by the Commission on Teacher
Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 1950.

 

Bessent, E. W. et a1.‘ Desigps for In-service Education. Austin:
University of Texas, ResearCh and Development Center for
Teacher Education, 1967 . P

 

Bolton, Dale S. Selection and Evaluation of Teachergg An Inter-
pretive Study of ResearEh and'DeveIOpment. Seattle:
UniverSity of Washington,§eptember, 19751

 

 

Boyce, Clifton A. Methods for Measurin Teacher Efficiency. Four- '
teenth Yearhooh of the National Society for the Study of ”
Education, Part II. Bloomington, 111.: Public School j
Publishing Company, 1915. ’

 

Bradley, Ruth et a1. Measurin Teacher Competence; Research Back-
rounds and Current Practice. Burlingame: Cali ornia
eachers Association, I964.

 

 

Educational Research Service, ERS Information Aid. Evaluating
Teachin Performance, Circular No. 2. Washington, D.C.:
EducationaI Research Service, February, 1972.

Heilman, Arthur. Effects of an Intensive Inservice Pro am on
Teachers' Classroomhehavior and gggiIs' Reading Achievement,
Cooperative ResearCh Project No. . Was ington, D.C.:

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Educa-
tion, November, 1965.

Hoehn, Lilburn P. Teachin Behavior Im rovement Pro ram. Detroit,
Mich.: Michigan-Ohio RegionaI EducatidnaI'Lahoratory, Inc.,
1969.

 

 

 

 

Johnson, Charles E., and Bauch, Jerold P. Competency Based Evaluation
Guide, Georgia Educational Models. Athens: University
of Ceorgia, 1970.

Johnson, Mel. Model Program for Teacher In-Service Trainingf1
Em hasizin the Affective Dimension. Arlington Heig ts,
111.: Elh Grove Training and Deve10pment Center, June, 1969.
Lowrey, Charles D. The Relapipn of Superintendents and Princi als
to the Trainin and Professional Improvement of Their Teachers.
The Seventh Yearhooh of the National Society fir the Study

of Education, Part I. Bloomington, 111.: Public School
Publishing Company, 1908.

 

 

 

 

153

Moffit, John Clifton. Inservice Education for Teachers. Washington,
D.C.: The Center for Applied'Research’in Education, Inc.,
1963.

 

Morin, Lloyd H. A Feasible Scheme for the Evaluation of Instructors.
Los Angeles: university of Caiifbrnia, August, I .

 

National Center for Educational Communication. Teacher Evaluation,
Prep 21. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational
ommunication, January, 1971.

 

 

 

 

National Education Association. Addresses and Proceedin s of One— E‘
‘ Hundred-Sixth Annual Meetlpg, Dallas, Texas, Juiy 1—6, I m

. Addressesgpd Proceedin s of One-Hundred-Ei hth Annual 1

Meeting. San Francisco, Calif., June 35-JuIy 6, I975. 51

 

L
. Evaluatin Teachin Performance, Circular No. 2. EJ
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, ERS
Information Aid, February, 1972.
. Evaluatin Teachin Perfbrmance, Circular No. 3.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, ERS
Information Aid, January, 1969.

In-service Education of Teachers, Research Summary.
Washington, D.C.: Nationai Education Association, 1966.

 

. Release of Classroom Teachers for Inservice Trainin .
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, ERS
Information Aid, December, 1969.

O'Hanlon, James and Witters, Lee A. Breakthrough, Inservice Education
for All Schools. A report issued by the Department 0
Education. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Department of
Education, 1967.

 

 

Ohio Education Association. Interface on Learnipg, Teacher
Evaantion. Columbus: Ohio Educatibn Association, Instruc-
tional Services Division, 1970.

Queer, Glenn. An Anal sis of Teacher Ratin Scales. Pittsburgh, Pa.:
Pittsburgh Public SEhools, I96 .

Redfern, George B. How to Appraise Teacher Performance. Columbus,
Ohio: School Management Institute, Inc., 1963.

Roberson, Wayne E. Effects of Teacher In-service on Instruction and
Learning. Tucson, Ariz.: EPIC Evaluation Center, i939.

 

 

154

Selden, David. Evaluate Teachers? Quest Paper Series, No. 4.
Washington,’D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, 1969.

 

Stennock, Suzanne X. The Evaluatee Evaluates the Evaluator, No. 5.
Washington, D.C.: Educational Research Service, I970.

 

Voege, Richard B. Procedures for Evaluating Classroom Teachers in
Central School Districts in the_State of washin ton. Seattle,
Wash.: SchooI Informatibn and Research Service, 70.

 

 

 

Westby—Gibson, Dorothy. In-service Educagipn, Perspectives for
Educators. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department oETHealth,
Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1967.

 

 

White, Marjorie A. et al. A Study of Contrastin Patterns in In-
service Education. Austin: University of Texas, Science

Education Center, 1967.

Wiles, Kimball. Does Faculty Participation Produce Curriculum
Improvement? Washihgton, D.C.: Association fbr Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1958.

 

 

Periodicals

 

Borg, Walter R. et al. "The Minicourse: A New Tool for the Educa-
tion of Teachers." Education, XC (February, 1970).

Crawford, Wylie. "My First Year of Teaching." Todey's Education,
XXXVI (February, 1971).

Denemark, George W., and MacDonald, James B. "Pre-Service and In-
service Education of Teachers." Review of Educational
Research, XXXVIII, No. 3 (June, 1967).

 

Doggett, Frank A. "An In-service Training Program." Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals, XLIV —'

(Eebruary,ii965)_

Eilbert, Henry. "The Deve10pment of Personnel Management in the
United States." Business History Review, XXXIII, No. 3
(Autumn, 1959).

 

 

 

Erickson, Kai L. "New Management Figures in Michigan School
Administration." Phi Delta Xappan, LI (April, 1970).

 

Gould, M. 1. "Counseling for Self-Development." Personnel Journal,
XLIX (March, 1970).

 

 

155

Gruenfeld, Leopold W., and Weissenberg, Peter. "Supervisory Charac-
teristics and Attitudes Toward Performance Appraisals."
Personnel Psychology, XIX (Summer, 1966).

Hain, John H., and Smith, George J. "How Principals Rate Teachers."
The American School Board Journal, CLV, No. 8 (February,
i96E).

Henry, G. H. "Style of Teaching and Teacher Evaluation, Videotape
Analysis." English Journal, LIX (October, 1970).

 

Isaack, Thomas S. "Perceiving Personnel Management." Personnel
Journal, XLVI (December, 1967).

Morris, Russell J. "Why an In-service Education Program?" Bulletin
of the National Association of Secondary School Principals,

WV, No. February, 1960).

Morse, John J., and Lorsch, Jay W. "Beyond Theory Y." Harvard
Business Review, XLVIII GMay, 1970).

 

 

Mueller, Gene. "The Videotape for Self-evaluation." Today's
Education, LIX (January, 1970).

Norton, Scott M. "Current Problems of the School Superintendent."
The Clearing House, XLIV (September, 1971).

Paul, Robert J. "Employee Performance Appraisals: Some Empirical
Findings." Personnel Journal, XLVII, No. 7 (February, 1968).

 

Podnos, I. "Consultative Method of Training." Personnel, XLVIII
(September, 1971).

Rose, Gale W. "The Effects of Administrative Evaluation." The
National Elementary Principal, XLIII, No. 2 (November, 1963).

Sloan, Stanley,and Johnson, Alton. "New Context of Personnel
Appraisal." Harvard Business Review, XLVIII, No. 6
(November-December, 1968).

Turner, H. E. "Improved In-service, A Challenge fer Supervisors." I§e_
Clearing House, XLV (October, 1970).

Dissertations

 

Anthony, Bobbie M. "The Identification and Measurement of Classroom
Environmental Process Variables Related to Academic Achieve-
ment." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1967.

.. .HI
~

..fi ’1“:.

 

".1. I'

 

156

Boznango, Marcia M. "An Evaluation of Selected Title III In-service
Projects in Michigan, as Perceived by Participating Teachers
on 13 Variables." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1968.

Ellinger, William B. "A Study of the Procedures Used to Evaluate
Professional School Personnel in the Public Schools of the
State of Maryland." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George
Washington University, 1968.

Foucar, Kenneth A. "Comparison of Industrial and Educational Pro-
fessional Personnel Policies and Practices." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1970.

Litherland, Bennett H. "An Analysis of Programs for Evaluating
Teachers for Tenure in Selected Michigan Public School
Districts." unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1968.

 

McClure, Warner. "A Survey of Certain ASpects of Personnel Policies
in Michigan Public School Systems." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1952.

Myers, David D. "Guidelines for an In—service Education Program
Based on Staff Role Perceptions of Individual and Group Roles
in Selected Curriculum Development Processes." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1971.

Neely, John M. "A Study of Classroom Teachers' Attitudes Toward
Selected Features of the Program of Self-Evaluation Using
the Evaluative Criteria in Oregon Secondary Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1971.

Staley, Gerald J. "The Elementary Principal's Success as an In-
service Education Advisor for Teachers in a Professional
Growth Incentive Program." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon, 1971.

Thompson, June E. M. "Evaluation and Authority in Elementary and
Secondary Schools: A Comparison of Teachers and Adminis-
trators." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer-
sity, 1971.

Torreson, Donald T. "A Comparative Study of Evaluation Procedures for
Non-Tenure Teachers in Selected Urban School Systems."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1967.

 

APPENDICES

 

ad
APPENDIX A
CENTRAL STAFF PERSONNEL INITIALLY INTERVIEWED

CONCERNING ROLE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

APPENDIX A

CENTRAL STAFF PERSONNEL INITIALLY INTERVIEWED
CONCERNING ROLE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS _

Brandon Community Schools, Ortonville, Michigan

 

it"- 9 ,

Mr. Clyde Fischer, Superintendent
Mr. John Vermilya, Assistant Superintendent

Flint Community Schools, Flint, Michigan
Dr. William J. Early, General Superintendent

Mr. August Brandt, Director, Staff Personnel Services

Holly Community Schools, Holly, Michigan

Mr. Russell Hadden, Superintendent

Lake Orion Community Schools, Lake Orion, Michigan

Mr. Lewis Mundy, Superintendent

Swartz Creek Community Schools, Swartz Creek, Michigan

Mr. John Dickey, Superintendent

157

 

 

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DATA COLLECTION

 

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DATA COLLECTION

GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Name of school district

 

Intermediate school district

 

Total number of staff having teacher certification,
excluding administrators

 

Total number of students (4th Friday. 1971)

 

1971-72 general fund budget

 

Name and position of respondent

 

 

Would you like a c0py of the study summary and recommendations? Yes No

 

 

SECTION I EVALUATION
1. EVALUATION
(DATA REQUESTED FOR STAFF WITH TEACHING CERTIFICATION. BUT EXCLUDING ADMINIS-
TRATIVE STAFF.)
A. General information

1. Does your teaching master contract include provisions for staff
evaluation?

Yes No

 

 

2. Does your district have written board of education personnel policies
supplementing teaching master contract provisions?

Yes No

 

 

3. Does your district have written job descriptions for staff positions?

Yes No

 

 

8. Evaluation procedures

1. What is your opinion of staff evaluation procedures in your district?
Please check one.

Highly adequate

Adequate
Inadequate
2. Does your district conduct formal. written evaluations of teaching
staff?
Yes No

 

 

If pg, please indicate reasons:

 

 

 

158

 

159

Indicate the de tee of res onsibilit for current conduct of staff
evaluation. PLEIEE COMPLETE, BY USE OF A CHECK (I) FOR ALL POSITIONS
PRESENT IN YOUR DISTRICT.

 

 

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
Major Some Little None
Superintendent........... ...... ..........

 

Associate superintendent.................
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction.
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel...
Director(s) of Elementary Education......
Director(s) of Secondary Education.......
Building principa1(s)....................
Administrative assistant.................
Teachers.................................
Parents..................................
Students.................................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicate the degree 95 respgnsibility which you feel should exist for
the conduct 0 ate f eva uat on. PLEASE COMPLETE BY USE OF A CHECK (V)
FOR ALL POSITIONS PRESENT IN YOUR DISTRICT.

 

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
a or Some Little None

 

Superintendent...........................
Associate superintendent.................
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction.
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel...
Director(s) of Elementary Education......
Director(s) of Secondary Education.......
Building principa1(s)....................
Administrative assistant.................
Teachers.................................
Parents..................................
Students.................................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lllllllllllF

 

 

 

 

 

 

What proportion of administrative work responsibility is devoted to the
evaluation process?

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
0 to 1/3 1/3 to 2/3 213 to 1

Superintendent..........................
Associate superintendent................
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel..
Director(s) of Elementary Education.....
Director(s) of Secondary Education......
Building principa1(s)...................
Administrative assistant................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—
#
fl
”

 

 

10s
11.

12.

160

PROBATIONARY TENURE

How often are teachers formally evaluated?

 

 

 

 

How many classroom observations precede
the written evaluation?

 

 

Is a scheduled conference between the
evaluator and the staff member a formal
part ofrtheyeyaluation?

 

 

Is the evaluation presented to the teacher
in written form?

 

 

Is an annual composite evaluation made?

 

Can teachers request more frequent
evaluations?

 

 

Comments:

 

 

Does the administration retain the
prerogative to initiate the evaluation
process when considered feasible?

 

Comments:

 

 

C. Purposes of Evaluation

1.

Please indicate what you feel evaluation presently accomplishes in your
district.

 

PRESENT PURPOSES OF IMPORTANCE KEY
EVALUATION
Some Little No

Important Importance Importance Importance

Administration of salary
increases...............
Determine retention or
discharge...............
Discussion of performance.
Evaluation for promotion..
Professional growth
programs................
Determine tenure status...
Aid employee self-
understanding...........
Other: Please specify:

lllllll
Illllllll
||||l|ll|
|||l|ll1|

 

 

 

 

161

2. Please indicate what you feel evaluation should accomplish in your
district.
IDEAL PURPOSES OF IMPORTANCE KEY
EVALUATION
Some Little No

Important Impgrtance Impgrtance Impgrtance

Administration of salary
increases...............
Determine retention or
discharge...............
Discussion of performance.
Evaluation for promotion..
Professional growth
programs................
Determine tenure status...
Aid employee self-
understanding. ..........
Other: Please specify:

lllllll
llllllll
llllllll

 

 

 

 

Please indicate types of evaluation instruments currently used.

 

Rating scale Anecdotal
Rank order Paired comparison
Forced distribution Critical incident

Other: Please specify:

 

 

Is student performance or achievement measured against district-established
goals and subsequently used in the formal evaluation of teaching staff?

Yes No

 

 

If yes, please describe:

 

 

Effect of Evaluation on Compensation Procedures

1. Does your district have provisions for staff compensation based on
merit or teacher performance?

Yes No

 

 

If no. please go to Section C: Development of Evaluation Procedures,
below.

2. Please check (/) types of compensation practices in use.

 

TYPE PROBATIONARY TENURE
No advancement on schedule ...... ......

 

 

Loss of increment.....................
Additional increment..................
Percent reduction of schedule base....
Percent increase of schedule base.....
Flat amount increase..................
Flat amount decrease..................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

H.

162

Development of Evaluation Procedures

1.

Please indicate the degree of responsibility for develo ent of evalu-
ation procedures. COMPLETE, BY MEANS OF A CHECK I75 FOR ALL POSITIONS
PRESENT IN YOUR DISTRICT.

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY

Major Some Little None

 

Board Of Bducation...‘......0..0.0.0....

 

 

SuperintendentOOCOO.....IIOOOOCOOCOIIOOO

 

 

Associate superintendent................

 

 

Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction

 

 

Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel..

 

 

Director(s) of Elementary Education.....

 

Director(s) of Secondary Education......

 

 

Building principa1(s)...................

 

 

Administrative assistant................

 

 

Teachers................................

 

 

Patent.....0............OOOOOOOOOOOIOIOO

 

 

student.IOOOOIOOCOOOIO.....OOOIOIIOOOOO.

 

 

Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has your district conducted training sessions to implement evaluation
procedures?

YO! NO

 

 

If yes. please indicate the degree of involvement for each source.
SOURCE INVOLVEMENT KEY

Najor- Some Little None

Within local school district............
Management consultant organizations.....
College and/or university resources.....
Intermediate school district............
Professional organizations. e.g., NASA.

MASS..................................
CoOperative efforts with other districts
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional comments regarding factors which enhance or retard evaluation

procedures for certified staff:

SECTION II PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PROGRAMS

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES
(DATA REQUESTED FOR STAFF WITH TEACHING CERTIFICATION. EXCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE

STAFF.)

A.

Please give your opinion regarding the importance of staff professional
growth programs as a school district responsibility.

Highly important

 

 

Some importance
Little importance
No importance
Comment:

 

 

 

 

163

Which of the following professional growth activities or services are made
available by your district? Also indicate if the activity is governed by
the teacher master contract.

ACTIVITY AVAILABLE MASTER CONTRACT

ACTIVITY VISION
Probationary Tenure PRO

Conference attendance at
district expense .............
Curriculum study committees....
Outside consultants... .........
ln-district visits at district

|
NH

costOOOOOOO ....... OI... 000000
Out-district visits at
district cost...... ..........

Staff meetings for staff
development purposes.... .....
Released time for teacher
p1anning.....................
Sabbatical leave...... .........
Summer curriculum p1anning.....
Dismissal of students for in-
service education............
Saturday workshops.............
Pro-school year orientation....
Professional libraries.........
Travel credit..................
In-district curriculum
consultants..................

Sensitivity training workshops.
Other: Please specify:

| I

 

 

 

l |||||H
HH! W H

 

Indicate those professional growth activities which result in compensation
in addition to the individual teacher contract.

Graduate credit above BA level
Tuition payment

Travel credit

Sabbatical leave

Summer workshops

Saturday workshOps

After-school hours workshOps
Pre-school year orientation
Elementary grade level chairmanship
Secondary department chairmanship
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

164

Is there an Instructional or Curriculum Policies Council or its equivalent
in your district?

Yes No

 

If pp, go to category E on page 7.
1. Does the teacher master contract regulate the council's operation?

Yes No

 

 

2. Is additional compensation paid for council membership?

Yes NO

 

 

3. Check those of the following which describe how the council functions
regarding professional growth activities.

Serves as a clearing house for ideas.

Sets standards and criteria for staff development and/or pro-
fessional growth in the district.

Develops and implements professional growth activities.
Evaluates staff development and professional growth activities.
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

4. Please indicate the degree of responsibility for direct participation
in the operation of the council.

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
Major Some Little None

Superintendent...........................

 

 

Associate superintendent.................

 

 

Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction.

 

 

Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel...

 

 

Director(s) of Elementary Education......

 

 

Director(s) of Secondary Education.......

 

 

Building principa1(s)....................

 

 

Director of in-service education.........

 

 

Elementary grade level chairmen..........

 

 

Secondary department chairmen............

 

 

Administrative assistant.................

 

 

Teaching staff..................... ......

 

 

patentSOO......OOOOOOIOOOOOIOI. ....... ...

 

 

Students.......IOICOOIOOCOOC......OOOOOOO

 

 

Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

165

What proportion of administrative work responsibility is devoted to pro-
fessional growth activities? PLEASE COMPLETE, BY MEANS OF A CHECK (l)
FOR ALL POSITIONS PRESENT IN YOUR DISTRICT.

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
O to 1/3 1/3 to 2Z3 2/3 to 1

Superintendent..............................
Associate superintendent....................
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Instruction....
Ass't. Sup't. or Director of Personnel......
Director(s) of Elementary Education.........
Director(s) of Secondary Education..........
Building principa1(s).......................
Director of in-service education............
Administrative assistant....................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsibility for Developing. Administering, and Evaluating Professional
Growth Activities.

1. Please indicate the degree of responsibility for developing district
professional growth activities.

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY

3

II llllll F—

or Some Little None

 

Board of Education members................
School district administrators............
Grade level chairmen......................
Secondary department chairmen.............
Teaching staff............................
Parents...................................
Students

Elementary........... ..... ..............

Secondary...............................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Please indicate the degree of responsibility for administering district
professional growth activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary...............................
Other: Please specify:

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY
Help; Spme Little None

Board of Education members................
School district administrators ........ ....
Grade level chairmen........ ........ ......
Secondary department chairmen ...... .......
Teaching staff...................... ......
Parents...................................
Students

Elementary................. ..... ........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other: Please specify:

166

3. Please indicate the degree of responsibility for evaluating district
professional growth activities.

POSITION RESPONSIBILITY KEY

3

a'or Some Little

Board of Education members................
School district administrators............
Grade level chairmen......................
Secondary department chairmen.............
Teaching staff............................
Parents...................................
Students

Elementary..............................

Secondary...............................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR CATEGORY F:

Does your district prescribe for teaching staff a minimum participation
level in professional growth activities?

Yes No

 

 

Additional comments:

 

 

 

Is there formalized planning with individual staff members regarding their
professional growth?

Yes NO

 

 

If yes. indicate the degree to which each of the following sources is
responsible for individual planning.

SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY KEY

 

Major Some Little None

 

Central administrative staff..................
Building principal............................
Professional colleagues.......................
Other: Please specify:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicate the number of days that students are released this year (1971-72)
for district professional growth activities.

Elementary
Secondary

 

 

 

 

 

167

Indicate the degree to which each of the following sources is involved in
professional growth activities.

 

SOURCE INVOLVEMENT KEY
M 0 Some Little None

 

Local school district........................
Management consultant organizations..........
College and/or university resources..........
Intermediate school district.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hlllll If

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional organizations. e.g., MASA. MASB. T1
Educational textbook publishers..............

Law enforcement agencies.....................

Other: Please specify:....

Please indicate your opinion regarding the success of professional growth Ca

programs in your district.

High success
Some success
Little success
No success
Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional comments regarding factors which enhance or retard professional
growth activities in your district:

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS

 

 

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS

2119 Mountain Avenue
Flint, Michigan 48503
April 17, 1972

Dear

By means of this letter, I seek your participation in a study
concerned with certain personnel management practices in Michigan
public schools. I am conducting this study as part of my doctoral ~_
program at Michigan State University, with Dr. Floyd 6. Parker,
Professor of Education, as advisor. When superintendent of the
Rochester, Michigan schools, I developed a keen appreciation fer the
importance of this area. I believe that you, as a practicing school
administrator, also share this appreciation.

 

Fix A. . .—-_,_

Because of the many components comprising the total personnel
management process, this study will be confined to only two major areas:

I Evaluation
II Professional Growth

Compensation practices which are directly related to evaluation and
professional growth programs will also be included in the study.

Data will be requested only for programs related to staff members
having teacher certification, but excluding administrative personnel.

 

 

All x-12 public school districts located within eight inter-
mediate school districts of southeastern Michigan will be invited to
participate in the study.

In developing your district's response, please feel free to in-
volve other administrators having responsibilities in areas surveyed.
A second capy of the questionnaire has been enclosed to be used as a
work c0py if desired. However, please submit a single questionnaire
from your district.

Your cooperation in promptly completing and returning the re-
quested information is very much appreciated. For your convenience,
a stamped, self-addressed envelope is provided.

If you wish to have a summary of findings and recommendations,
please so indicate on the general data page (1).

Your kind assistance is highly valued. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Douglas B. Lund

168

 

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

2119 Mountain Avenue I
Flint, Michigan I+8503
Hay ll, 1972

 

Dear

Some time ago I mailed to your office a request
for your district's participation in a study con-
cerned with teacher evaluation and professional growth
r0 am.

Very frankly, I need your assistance in making
this study as comprehensive in scope as possible.
It would be very much appreciated if you could com-
plete the questionnaire and return to me as soon as
possible.

Should you need additional questionnaires , please
let me know and they will be prouptly supplied.

Thank you for your cOOperation. If this letter
and your reSponse have crossed paths, please ignore
this reminder.

Sincerely,

Douglas B . Lund

169