NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report March 1994

Public Elementary Teachers’Views on TeacherPerformance Evaluations

FRSSF.. Response survey System

Mary Jo NolinCassandra RowandElizabeth FarrisWesta~ Inc.

Judi Carpenter, Project OfficerNational Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of EducationOffIce of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 94-097

U.S. Department of EducationRichanl W. RileySecretaty

Office of Educational Reeearch and improvementSharon RobinsonAssistant Secretary

National Center for Education StatletlceEmerson J. ElliottCommissioner

National Center for Education Statietlce“The purpose of the Center shall be to collect, and analyze,and disseminate statistics and other data related toeducation in the United States and in othernations. :-Section 406(b) of the General EducationProvisions Act, as amended (20 U.S. C. 1221 e-1 ).

March 1994

Contact:Judi Carpenter(202) 291-1333

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, MaiI Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16-043139-5

Findings fmm a nationally representative suwey of approximately1,000 public elementary school teachers conducted in the spring of 1993contain the following highlights:

Most teachers (89 percent) believe their last performance evaluationprovided an accurate assessment of their teaching performance.Seventy-four percent thought their last evaluation had been useful forimproving their teaching (table 5).

A large majority of teachem (94 percent) reported that the criteriaused for evaluating their performance were known to them prior tothe evaluation process (table 2).

Ninety-two percent of teachers qxxted that their most recentevaluation included classroom observations that received a formalrating, and 69 percent said that informal observations were part ofthe last evaluation (table 2).

While 99 percent of elementary teachem said that subject matterknowledge should be a consideration in evaluating performance,only 65 percent said it had been considered to a great extent in theirmost recent evaluation (table 3).

Most teachem pemeived that their evaluatom wem competent tojudge their performance in selected aspects of teaching (table 3).

l’hnx-fourths of public elementary school teachers qorted thatdetermining teachers’ pay levels was not an objective of teacherperformance evaluations at their school when they were lastevaluated, and 50 percent ag~e that this should not be an objective(table 6).

. . .111

Table of Contents

HighlighK .

Background.

. .

● ☛

. .

. .

.

●

.

.

.

●

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

●

●

● ☛

● ✎

● ☛

● 0

Teacher Performance Evaluation Practices. .

Written Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher Performance Evaluation Procedures.

●

●

✎

●

✎

Aspects of Teaching Considered in Evaluations

Evaluator Competency. . . . . . . . . . .

Reasons for Teacher Performance Evaluations.

Outcomes of Teacher Performance Evaluations

. .

. .

.0

. .

. .

.0

. .

● .

. .

Objectives of Teacher Performance Evaluations. .

Formative Goals . . . . .Surnmative Goals. . . . .Administrative Control. .Variations by Teacher and

Summatye .. o........

● ✎ ✎ ✎

..*O

.0. .

● 0..0..

. ..0.0 ●

. ...*. .

● ☛

● ✎

✎ ✎

.0

. .

. .

. .

.0

.0

.0

● .

.0

● .

Characteristics

. .

Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . .Teacher Sampling . . . . . . . . . .Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . .Sampling and NonSampling Errors .variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Background Information. . . . . . .References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Deftitions . . . . . . . . . . ..o.

Tables of Estimates and Standard Emors .

Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛

● ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎

● ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎

● ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

● ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎

● ✎ ☛ ✎ ☛

✎ ..0.

● ..0.

. . . . .

. . . . .

. .

● ☛

✎ ✎

.0

. .

● O

. .

● 0

,.

● *

. .

,.

.

.

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

●

✌☛

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

. .

. .

. .

. .

● ✎

✎ ✎

● 0

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.0

. .

● .

. .

.0

. .

. .

.,

.0

. .

. .

.0

. .

.0

● ✎

● 0

. .

. .

● .

. .

. .

● .

. .

. .

. .

. .

● .

. .

● .

. .

● 0

.0

. .

● .

.0

.,

. .

. .

. .

● .

.

.

●

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

✎

●

●

●

●

●

●

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

.

●

●

✎

✎

✌

✎

●

✎

●

✎

●

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

.

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

●

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

. .

● ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

● ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

● ✎

● 0

. .

● .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

● .

.*

.0

. .

. .

. .

. .

.0

. .

● .

. .

. .

. .

. .

● 0

.*

. .

.0

● .

. .

.0

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

●

●

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

●

✎

.

.

.

.

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

●

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

.

●

●

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

✎

●

✎

●

●

●

●

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

✎

●

✎

●

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.*

.*

.*

● 0

. .

. .

● 0

. .

. .

. .

● .

. .

● .

. .

. .

,.

. .

,.

. .

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

☛

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

●

.

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

.

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

.

.

.

.

.

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

.

.

.

.

.

●

✎

●

✎

✎

●

●

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

● ✎

✎ ✎

● ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

.

.

.

.

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

.

.

.

.

.

●

✎

●

✎

●

✎

●

●

✎

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

Page

. . .111

1

3

4

5

7

9

10

10

10

11121212

14

15

1515161717181919

21

43

v

List of Figures

Figure Page

Teacher Performance Evaluation Practices

1 Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting the existence of writtenteacher performance evaluation policies: 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Percent of public elementary school teachem reporting the existence of writtenteacher performance evaluation policies, by region: 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Teacher Performance Evaluation Procedures

3 Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting who was involved in theirlastteacher performance evaluation: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting the evaluator with themost important role in the last teacher performance evaluation: 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Aspects of Teaching Considered in Evaluations

5 Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating that various aspectsof teaching should be considered and actuall y were considered to a great extenttitieirl~t ~akrptiommm evolution 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Objectives of Teacher Performance Evaluations

6 Percent of public elementary school teachem reporting that various uses of teacherperformance evaluations should be objectives to a great extent and wem objectivestoagreatextent whenthey werelastevaluated: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7 Percent of public elementary school teachem reporting that determining pay levelsshould not bean objective of teacher performance evaluations to any extent, by yearsofservice uncurrent school: 1993.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

vi

List of Tables

Reference Tables Page

1

la

2

2a

3

3a

4

4a

5

5a

6

6a

Percent of public elementary school teachem whose performance has been formallyevaluated at their current school, number of evaluations, status when evaluated,date of last evaluation, and existence of written policies, by selected teacher andschool characteristics: 1993..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers whoseperformance has been formally evaluated at their current school, number ofevaluations, status when evaluated, date of last evaluation, and existence ofwritten policies, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of public elementary school teachers who report various evaluationprocedures, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standad errors of the percent of public elementary school teacherx who reportvarious evaluation procedures, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993. . . . .

Percent of public elementary school teachem indicating whether various aspects ofteaching should be considered, the extent to which each was considered in their lastteacher performance evaluation, and pemqtion of the competence level of theevaluating penonorgroup: 1993.. . . . .. O F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O

Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating whethervarious aspects of teaching should be considered, the extent to which each was consideredin their last teacher performance evaluation, and perception of the competence level of theevaluating pemonorgmup: 1993.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of public elementary school teachem indicating various aspects of teachingthat were actually considered to a great extent and should be considered in formalteacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993 . . .

Standard errm of the percent of public elementary school teachem indicatingvarious aspects of teaching that were actually considered to a great extent andshould be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selectedteacher andschool cha.racteristics: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of public elementaq school teachers reporting various reasons for andoutcomes of their last evaluation, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993 . . .

Standard ermm of the percent of public elementary school teachem qortingvarious reasons for and outcomes of their last evaluation, by selected teacherandschool characteristics: 1993... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of public elementary school teachem indicating the extent to which varioususes of teacher performance evaluations are an objective and should be an objective intheir school: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard enom of the percent of public elementary school teachem indicating the extentto which various uses of teacher performance evaluations are an objective and should beanobjective intheirschool: 1993.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

32

35

36

37

38

vii

7 Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching thatare an objective to a great extent and should be an objective of formal teacherperformance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993. . . . . . . 39

7a Standard enum of the percent of public elementary school teachem indicating variousaspects of teaching that are an objective to a great extent and should be an objectiveof foxmal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and schoolcharacteristics: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . .Vlll

Background The evahmtion of teaching performance is regarded as an importantmeans of promoting excellence in education. As one researcher hasnoted, “The public has come to believe that the key to educationimprovement lies as much in upgrading the quality of teachers as inrevamping school programs and curricula” (Darling-Hammond 1990, 18).The increased importance attached to the evaluation of teaching can beseen in various events that occumd during the 1980s, such as theadoption by most states of teacher testing programs for certification, theestablishment of a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,major revisions to the National Teacher Examinations, and thedevelopment by many states of guidelines for teacher evaluation(Millman and Darling-Hammond 1990). The purposes of teacherevaluation are generally divided into two major goals: formative andsurnmative (Millman 1981, Bickem 1988, Millman and Darling-Hammond 1990). Impmving classroom teaching and fosteringprofessional development are examples of the formative goals of teacherevaluation. Evaluations can also be used to achieve summative goals,such as setting standards by which employment and compensationdecisions are made and removing incompetent teachem fium theclassroom.

Most educational administrators and teachers agree that evaluations mustbe used constructively before they can be effwtive in improvingeducational excellence. The extent to which teachers know the criteriaand procedures for performance evaluation, view their evaluations asusefid to their professional developmen~ and pcxeive the objectives ofthe evaluation process at their school as consistent with the objectivesthat they regard as meaningful may affect the success of teacherperformance evaluations in improving the quality of education in theUnited States (Darling-Hammond, Wise, and Pease 1983).

Efforts m underway to help schools throughout the nation improvemeasurement criteria, instruments, and procedures for evaluating theperformance of their teachers and to train educatom and adrninistratom inthe use of valid evaluation measures (Dwyer and Stufflebeamforthcoming). Research has been conducted to assess the currentpatterns of teacher performance evaluations, including case studies onschool and district policies (Wise et al. 1984; Stiggins and Duke 1988).However, there is little, if any, national data fmm the teacher’sperspective: how do teachers view the evaluation practices andprocedures at their schools and what are their opinions on various aspectsof their performance evaluations?

To provide data to fill this gap, the Survey on Teacher PerformanceEvaluations was commissioned by the National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES). The Office of Research, U.S. Department ofEducation, requested the survey to provide data for the Center forResearch on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation(CREATE), a component of The Evaluation Center at Western MichiganUniversity’s College of Education. CREATE is a national research anddevelopment center tided by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education. CREATE serves asa focal point for efforts to strengthen educational semices by improvingteacher performance evaluations and developing other strategies

1

(Stufflebeam 1991). The survey was conducted by Westat, Inc., usingthe Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), which was established byNCES to collect small quantities of data needed for educational planningand policy. Data were collected from a national sample of public schoolteachers of kindergarten through grade 6 who we~ asked to report on themost recent teacher performance evaluation they had received. Moreinformation on the survey methodology is contained in the final sectionsof this report.

This report presents data on the extent to which public school teachers ofkindergarten through grade 6 have experienced formal evaluations intheir current school and the procedures that their schools employ inevaluating teacher performance. This survey included only elementaryschool teachem because their experience was likely to differ from that ofsecondary school teachers. A Fast Response sumey does not permit alarge enough sample size to compare the two groups. Teachem’assessments of the outcomes of their last teaching performance evalua-tion are also presented. In addition, the report gives the pempectives ofteachem on the aspects of teaching that were actually considered inevaluating their teaching performance, the aspects that they believeshould be considered, and the appropriate uses of formal teacherperformance evaluations.

Data are given for all teachem of kindergarten through grade 6 who arein at least their second year of teaching at their current school and whohave been formally evaluated at least one time at that school. (Onlyteachers in at least their second year at their current school were sampledbecause first year teachem may not have had the opportunity to havecompleted a formal evaluation.) Data are also presented by selectedteacher and school characteristics. The specific characteristics werechosen because CREATE’s experience indicated they might showvariation in pempectives on teacher performance evaluation. Data werenot analyzed by sex and race due to small sample sizes for males andminorities. Approximately 84 percent of public elementary schoolteachers am female, and 73 percent are white, non-Hispanic. (Schoolsand Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile 1990-91) Teachercharacteristics were obtained from the teachers in the survey and schoolcharacteristics were obtained from the Common Com of Data (CCD)Universe of Public Schools.

Teacher characteristics

w Teacher c ertification status when last evaluated: advanced,standard, probationary or temporary.

m Grade: K through third, fourth through sixth.

■ Number of years teaching in current school; 1 through 4,5 through10, 11 or more.

School characteristics

TeacherPerformanceEvaluationPractices

● Enrollment size of school: less than 400 (small), 400 to 600(medium), more than 600 (large).

● Urbanicity of school: city, urban fringe, town, rural. Urbanicity. categories are defined in the suxvey methodology section of thisrepofi

Survey findings are organized into six sections. The first sectionaddresses teacher performance evaluation practices. Section twopnxents evaluation procedures. Section three gives teachers’ opinionsabout the aspects of teaching that they think should be considered inperformance evaluations. A discussion of the reasons for and outcomesof evaluations is contained in sections four and five, and a section onteachem’ pempectives on the appropriate objectives of evaluationsconcludes the repot

Teacher performance evaluations are a common practice in the nation’spublic elementary schools; 98 percent of elementary teachers reportedthat they had been formally evaluated at least one time in the schools inwhich they are currently teaching. Of those teachers who had beenevaluated,l 42 percent indicated that they had been evaluated 6 to 14times in their current school, and 29 percent indicated that they had beenevaluated 15 or mom times (table 1).

Variations in the meaning of “for mal evaluation” should be kept in mindwhen interpreting the number of evaluations a teacher has received. Thedefinition of formal evaluation included on the questionnaire instructednxpondents to answer with regard to the total and systematic process ofperformance evaluation within a given time period. This process mightextend over the course of a semester or a year, or a longer period of time,and it might include several diffenmt pmcedums to evaluate variousaspects of teaching performance. It would likely have some closure inthe form of feedback to the teacher or a written report of the outcome.However, because the time period included in a formal evaluation mightvary and because there wem specific questions about whether or notfeedback was received by the teacher, as well as the type of feedbackthat was received, those points were not part of the definition that wasoffered. Judging from the teachers’ counts of the number of times theyhad been formally evaiuated, some may view the formal evaluationprocess in a more fragmented manner. For example, each occurrence ofclassroom observation appeam to have been counted as a formalevaluation by some respondents, even though they all may have beenpart of one year-long process. On the other hand, some teachers whowere interviewed by telephone explained that early in their teachingcareers they received formal evaluations several times a year, and as theygained experience, they were formally evaluated on a yearly or biennialbasis. Seventy-two percent of teachers had received a formal evaluationduring the 1992-93 academic year.

lBecause so few reqxmdents indicated they M not km fondly evalua@ those cases wemexcluded fran fwther analysis.

3

Written Policies

Nearly three-quartm of the teachers held a standard teaching certificateat the time they were last evaluated, about one in five held advancedcertification, and only 5 percent wem in probationary or temporary status(table 1). Findings related to certification status should be interpretedcautiously. The categories may have diffenimt meanings in differentstates, and teachers holding probationary or temporary status maybe newemployees in a state or district but not new to the teaching profession

A majority of teachem reported that written policies guide their teacherperformance evaluations. Most common are the district-level policies,reported by 90 pment of teachers, and school-level policies, reported by80 penxmt of the teachem. Although 56 percent of all teachers reportedthat their state has a written policy on evaluations, 37 percent said theydid not know whether or not their state had a written policy onevaluations (figure 1). The existence of written state policies on teacherperformance evaluations is associated with geographical region.Seventy-seven percent of teachers in the Southeast, 69 percent of those inthe West, and only 36 percent of teachers in the Northeast and 33 percentin the Central region of the country knew that their state had a writtenpolicy on evaluations (figure 2). Approximately 3 percent of teacherswere not aware of any written policy for their evaluations either at thestate, distric~ or school level.

Figure 1.--Pemmt of public elementary school teachers nqmting the existence of written teacherpxformance evaluation policies: 1993

Percent

100

80

60 1

40

20

0‘1

56

90

82

80

97

3

YesNoDon’t know

Written state Written district Written school State, district,policy policy policy and/or school

has written policy*Less than 0.5 percent.

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Stuvey System, Survey on T~erPetionnance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

20nly 49 teachers in the sample reported holding pmhationary or teqomry cetication. Becauseof this small sample size and the resulting large variamxx, appwent penxmtage differences shownin tiles may not he statistically significant.

4

Figure 2.--Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting the existence of written teacherPerformanm-evaluation policies, byregion: 1993

Percent

1001 91

80

60

40

20

0

9086

91 State has written policyDistrict has written policySchool has written policy

Northeast Southeast Central West

SOURCE: U.S. I@artmont of Education, National Gmter for Edacatk Statistics, Fast Response Sunmy System, SuIVey cm TeacherPcrfosmancc Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

—

Teacher &mhmtion pmcedws can encompass various indicators of teaching

Performanceperformance. A large majority of teachers, 92 percen~ reported that theirmost recent evaluation included classroom observations that received a

Evaluation formal rating, and 69 percent said that informal observations wem part of

Proceduresthe last evaluation (table 2). Informal observations were more likely tobe reported by teachers at schools ending less than 400 students thanby teachers at schools having more than 600 students. Only 1 percent ofteachem said videotapes of their teaching performance wem evaluated.

Teachers say that their performance evaluations rarely include objectiveindicatom of subject matter expertise. Only 4 percent of teachersreported that their scores on tests wem considered in evaluating theirteaching performance, and 19 percent said that portfolios of their workwere evaluated. Also rmly included in the performance evaluation wasinput from students either in the form of student questionnairxx orstudent test scores. Four percent of teachers said student test scores wereconsidered as part of their evaluation process, and only 2 percent saidstudent questiomaires wem included.

procedures for most teacher performance evaluations includeestablishing and disseminating criteria for the evaluation. Ninety-fourpercent of teachem Epotied that the criteria for evaluating theirperformance were lmown to them prior to the evaluation process (table2). Likewise, most teachem received a verbal explanation (97 percent)

5

and a written report (91 percent) following their last evaluation. Eighty-seven percent of teachers reported that their school has an appealprocess. Ninety-five percent can submit a written response to theevaluation that will become part of the teacher’s permanent filq this rightis more common for teachers in schools located in an urban fringe areathan for those in ci~ schools.

The vast majority of teacher performance evaluations are conducted bythe school principal. Principals were involved in evaluating 90 percentof elementary school teachem, and a school administrator other than theprincipal was involved in evaluating 20 percent of teachers (figure 3).Other personnel named wem district or state evaluators or membm ofthe school boanl (by 6 percent of teachers), a master teacher or a groupof teachers, and students or parents of students (both by 2 percent). In 89percent of all evaluations the pMcipal had the major role, in 9 percentanother school administrator had the major role, and in 2 percent adistrict administrator had the major mle in conducting the evaluation(figure 4).

F@ure 3.--Percent of public elementary school teachem reporting who was involved in their lastperformance evaluation: 1993

1001 90

80-

60-

40-

20-

0 -

62 2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response SuIVey System, Survey on TeacherPerformance Evaluations, FRSS 44,1993.

Figure 4.--Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting the evaluator with the most importantrole in the last teacher performance evaluation: 1993

9%

~ Principal

~ School administratorother than principal

m District administrator

U Other

89%

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Dqwtsnrmt of Educatk, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Stmey on Teacher

Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Aspects of Elementary teachers were asked to assess 13 aspects of teaching that

Teachingcould potentially be taken into account when evaluating teacherperformance. They were asked to report the extent to which each aspect

Considered in had actually been considered in their most recent evaluation, and whether

Evaluationsthey think each aspect should be considered when evaluating a teacher’sperformance. More than 90 percent of elementary teachers said that thefollowing six aspects of teaching should be considered in evaluating ateacher’s performance: overall teaching performance (99 percent),subject matter knowledge (99 percent), classroom management (99percent), instructional techniques (99 percent), helping each studentachieve according to his or her ability (97 percent), and teachingdemands unique to students in the classroom (95 percent). Somewhatsmaller percentages named equitable treatment of students andcolleagues (89 percent), professional development activities (80 percent),and cooperation with other school personnel (78 percent) as importantfactors to consider. Neighborhood or school problems affecting one’steaching, involving parents in the learning process, grading methods, andtest construction skills were cited by 69 percent, 65 percent, 56 percent,and 49 percent, respectively (table 3).

The six aspects of teaching that mo~ than 90 percent of teachers saidshould be considered when conducting teacher performance evaluationswere also cited as actually having been considered to a g~at extentduring their most recent evaluations by the greatest percentage of

7

teachem. Over 50 percent of teachem reported that those six aspects --overall teaching performance, subject matter knowledge, classroommanagement, instructional techniques, helping each student achieveaccording to his or her ability, and teaching demands unique to studentsin the classroom -- had actually been considered to a great extent (table 3and figure 5). Forty-three percent of teachers reported that equitabletreatment of students and colleagues was considered. However, for eachof these aspects of teaching, there was a significant discrepancy betweenthe percentage citing it as important to consider and the percentage citingit as actually having been considered to a gnxt extent in theirevaluations. For example,

■ While 99 percent of elementary teachem said that subject matterknowledge should be a consideration in evaluating a teacher, 65percent of teachem said it had been considered to a great extent.-

■ Although 97 percent of teachem believed that contributing tostudents’ achievement should be a consideration, only 63 percentreported that it actually had been considered to a great extent in theirlast evaluation.

Figure 5.--Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating that various aspects of teaching shouldbe considered and actually were considered to a great extent in their last teacher performanceevaluation: 1993

Percent

100-

80-

6 0 -

40-

20-

0 -

99 99 99 99 97 95

= Should be considered

= Was actually consideredto great extent

89

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Sumey on TeacherPerformance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

EvaluatorCompetency

■ Ninety-five percent thought that teaching demands unique to thestudents in their classrooms should be considered, but onl y 53percent of teachem reported this aspect actually was considered to agreat extent.

A majority of teachen reported four aspects of teaching had beenconsidered only to a small extent or not at all when they were lastevaluated. These were test construction skills (cited by 68 percent),grading methods (61 percent), neighborhood or school problemsaffecting one’s teaching (60 percent), and involving parents in thelearning process (57 percent).

Teachers were generally alike in their opinions as to what was and whatshould be considered in a teacher’s evaluation. Few teacher or schoolcharacteristics were associated with the aspects of teaching that wereactually considered to a great extent in the performance evaluations ofelementary teachers. Some diffenmces in opinion as to what wasconsidered in evaluations were, however, associated with teachercertification status. A greater pmentage of teachem holding advancedcertification, 73 percent, than teachem with standard certification, 63percent, reported that subject matter knowledge was considered to a greatextent in their last evaluation (table 4). Similarly, a higher percentage ofteachers with advanced certificates than with standard certificates (23percent and 11 percent, respectively) reported that involving parents inthe learning process was considered to a g~at extent. A gxeaterproportion of teachers with advanced certificates (15 percent) than thosewith probationary or temporary certificates (4 percent) said that gradingmethods were considered to a great extent in their last evaluation.

Other differences were associated with the grade taught and with theurbanicity of the school. For instance, 56 percent of teachem ofkindergarten through grade 3 reported that teaching demands unique tostudents in the classroom were considered to a gnmt extent versus 48percent of teachers of grades 4 through 6. Teachers at schools located inthe urban fringe wem more likely than teachers in rural schools to reportthat professional development activities had been considered in their lastevaluation, while a greater percentage of teachers in cities than teachersin towns or rural areas said that neighborhood and school problemsaffecting their teaching were considered to a great extent. There wasalso a significant difference between teachers in urban fringe and ruralareas, with a higher percentage of urban fringe than rural teachersreporting that neighborhood and school problems had been taken intoconsideration to a great extent at their last evaluation.

Teachem were asked to rate the level of competency of the persons wholast evaluated them on each of the 13 selected aspects of teaching. Ingeneral, evaluators were deemed competent to evaluate the aspects ofteaching considered most important by teachers. Fifty percent or moresaid that their most recent evaluator was highly competent to evaluate thefollowing nine aspects of teaching: overall teacher performance, subjectmatter knowledge, classroom management, instructional techniques,contribution to student achievement, teaching demands unique to thestudents in their classroom, equitable treatment of students and

9

colleagues, professional development activities, and cooperation withother school pemonnel (table 3).

Reasons forTeacherPerformanceEvaluations

Outcomes ofTeacherPerformanceEvaluations

Objectives ofTeacherPerformanceEvaluations

Theac em were asked to identifi all of the reasons for their lastperformance evaluation. The options were a regularly scheduledevaluation, for tenure, for a promotion, for merit pay, or because theteacher requested i~ and teachem could choose more than one reason.Ninety-seven percent of teachem said that their most recent teacherperformance evaluation was a regularly scheduled evaluation (table 5).Nine percent said their evaluation was conducted as part of the processof conferring tenure, and 6 percent reported that their evaluation woulddetermine the award of merit pay. Less than 1 percent of teachers saidthe evaluation was done at the teachers’ request. Not surprisingly,teachers with probationary or temporary status were more likely thanteachers holding standard or advanced certificates to qmrt that their lastevaluation was conducted for the purpose of receiving tenure. The samewas true for teachers with 4 yeas or fewer in semice at the currentschool versus teachers who had taught at the school for 5 to 10 years or11 years or more.

Most teachers reported that positive outcomes followed their lastteacher performance evaluation. Teachers believe that their evaluationpresented an accurate picture of their teaching performance. Thissatisfactory outcome was reported by 89 perumt of teachers. Sixty-threepercent of teachem had the opportunity to design a plan for theirprofessional development following their last teacher performanceevaluation. The only significant difference among groups of teacherswas that teachers with advanced cetilcates wexe mom likely to say thatthey were given the opportunity to design such a plan than were teacherswith standard certificates. Seventy-four percent of teachers thought thattheir last evaluation had been usefil for improving their teaching skills.

Theac ers’ opinions were sought about nine possible objectives ofteacher performance evaluations. Four of these objectives me formative,that is, they represent the more inclusive goal of encouraging theprofessional development of teachers. These are to guide improvementof teaching skills, to recognize and reinforce teaching excellence, to helpteachers focus on student outcomes, and to plan inservice educationactivities. Four other objectives -- to make tenure and promotiondecisions, to discharge incompetent teachers, to help teachers definestandards for their peem, and to determine teachem’ pay levels -- aresummative goals involving personnel decisions. The ninth objective, togive administrator greater control over teacher job performance, doesnot fit into either category. Most teachers perceive that evaluations attheir school are used to promote the development of improved teachingskills rather than to assist administrators and other teachers to makejudgments affecting persomel decisions for teachers. Furthermore, mostteachers do not believe that the latter goals should be objectives ofperformance evaluations at their schools (figure 6).

10

Figure 6.--Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting that various uses of teacherperformance evaluations should be objectives to a great extent and were objectives to a greatextent when they were last evaluated: 1993

Percent

100

1 8180

60

40

20

0

- Should bean objective

~ Was m objective

62

70

51

45

23

14 15

SOLJKX: U.S. Department of Education, Natkmal Center for Education Statistics, Fast Rcqxme SuIVcy System, Survey on TeacherPerfcmnaace Evaluations, FRSS 44,1993.

Formative Goals A majority of teachem reported that formative goals, that is, goalsassociated with professional development (guiding improvement ofteaching skills, recognizing and reinforcing teaching excellence, helpingteachers focus on student outcomes, and planning insenice educationactivities), should bean objective to a great extent in teacherperformance evaluations (table 6 and figun 6). However, approximately20 percent fewer teachers reported that each of these four goals had beenan objective to a great extent at their school when they were lastevaluated. For example:

■ Guiding improvement of teaching skills was cited by 81 percent ofteachers as being an appropriate objective to a great extent, but only61 percent of teachers said that it actually was an objective to a greatextent in their last evaluation.

11

■ While 70 pment of teachers believe that recognizing and reinforcingteaching excellence should be an objective of teacher performanceevaluations to a great extent 51 percent reported that it actually wasan objective to a great extent when they were last evaluated.

Summative Goals Smaller percentages of teachers cited goals associated with persomeldecisions for teachers as having been an objective at their school.Furthermore, smaller percentages felt that summative goals should beobjectives of teacher performance evaluations to a great extent thanbelieved that of formative goals. The summative goals measured in thissurvey are to make tenure and promotion decisions, to dischargeincompetent teachem, to help teachem define standards for their peen,and to determine teachers’ pay levels. Despite more congruence betweenteachers’ opinions and school objectives on these goals, there was asignificant difference between teachers’ perceptions of whether theseshould be objectives to a great extent compared to whether they actuallywere objectives to a great extent at the time of the last evaluation Thiswas true for each goal except the goal of making tenure and promotiondecisions. For instance, 45 percent of teachers thought the goal ofdischarging incompetent teachers should bean objective of teacherperformance evaluations to a great exten~ but only 18 percent reportedthat it was actually an objective to a great extent when they wem lastevaluated.

AdministrativeControl

me goal of giving administrators greater control over teacher jobperformance showed a different pattern fmm the other objectives.Eleven percent of teachem believed that giving adrninistratom greatercontrol over teacher job performance should bean objective to a greatextent however, 15 percent reported that it was actually an ob~ve to agreat extent when they were last evaluated.

Variations by Perhaps one of the most striking findings is that 75 percent of teachers

Teacher and School reported that determining teachers’ pay levels was not at all an objective

Characteristics at their school when they were last evaluated, and 50 percent agree that itshould not be an objective to any extent (table 6). This oninion varieswith yearn of service in the current school. Forty-the p&cent ofteachers with 1 through 4 years of service vemus 58 percent of those whohave 11 years or more of service in the current school believe thatdetermining pay levels should not bean objective of teacher performanceevaluations to any extent (figure 7).

Figure 7.--Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting that determining pay levels should notbean objective of teacher performance evaluations to any exten~ by yearn of service in currentschool: 1993

Percent

100

80 160

f 43

58

49

1-4 5-1o 11 or more

Years of service in currmt school

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statitics, Fast Response SuIVey System, Survey cm TeacherPerformance Evaluatkms, FRSS 44, 1993.

Some opinions about goals that are objectives to a great extent in theevaluations teacherx have experienced and those that teachers believeshould be objectives to a great extent are associated with other teacherand school characteristics. For instance, teachem with probationary ortemporary status are mom likely than teachers with standard certificationstatus to report that planning inservice education is an importantobjective of teacher performance evaluations at their schools. This isaho true of teachers in schools with enrollments of more than 600students versus schools with less than 400 students and of teachem incity schools versus those in rural schools. However, a greater percentageof teachers in schools located in towns than in schools in rural areasthink planning inservice education should be an objective of evaluations.School size is associated with teacher belief that setting standards forpeers should bean objective of teacher performance evaluations. Agreater percentage of teachers in the largest schools (27 percent) than inthe smallest schools (19 percent) believe that defining standards for peersshould bean objective. However, urbanicity of the school is related toteachers’ reporting that setting standards for peers is an objective to agreat extent, with a greater pmentage of teachem in cities and townsthan teachers in rural areas reporting it as an objective of evaluations intheir schools. Urbanicity is also related to reporting that the goal ofevaluations to a g~at extent is helping teachem focus on student

13

Summary

outcomes. Fifty-seven percent of teachers in suburban schools reportthat this was a goal in their schools at the last evaluation versus 36percent in rural areas. Finally, teachers with 11 or more yearn of serviceare more likely to report that discharging incompetent teachers is anobjective at their schools than are teachers with fewer than 5 years ofsewice (table 7), and teachers of 4th through 6th grade are more likelythan teachers of kindergarten through 3rd grade to believe that it shouldbe.

According to the reports of the nationti sample of public schoolteachem of kindergarten through grade 6 who participated in the Sumeyon Teacher Performance Evaluations, the practice of evaluatingelementary school teachers is well established in the nation’s schools.Teacher evaluation procedures are guided by written policies,particularly at the school and district levels. Evaluation criteria areknown by most teachers prior to the process of performance evaluation,and most teachers are evaluated by their school principal, chiefly throughformal and in.formal classroom obsenmtion. A large majority of teachersreceive both written and verbal feedback following their evaluation, andmost can submit a written response or file an appeal at their school.

Most teachers believe their evaluations are an accurate reflection ofteaching performance and that they are useful for improving teaching.However, them was a discrepancy between teachers’ views of aspects ofteaching that should be evaluated and teachem’ reports of the aspects oftheir performance that were evaluated. The greatest percentage ofteachem reported that overall teaching performance, subject matterknowledge, classroom management, instructional techniques, helpingstudents achieve, and unique teaching demands should be considered inevaluating a teacher’s performance, but a significantly smaller pmentagereported that those aspects of teaching were actually considered to agreat extent in their last evaluation.

Teachers are most supportive of evaluations used to improve their ownskills. Objectives related to improving the quality of teachers in thenation’s schools in general, such as using evaluations to dischargeincompetent teachers or, especially, to determine teachers’ pay levels,met with less approval. However, more teachers thought these twoobjectives should be a purpose of teacher performance evaluations thanreported they actually were at their schools.

14

Survey A two-stage sampling process was used to select teachers for the FRSS

MethodologySurvey on Teacher Performance Evaluations. At the first stage, astratified sample of 525 schools was drawn horn the 1990-91 list of

and Data public schools compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics.

ReliabilityThis complete file contains about 85,000 school listings, including over59,000 schools with grades 1 through 6, and is part of the NCESCommon CON of Data (CCD) School Universe. Regular schools

Sample Selection providing instruction in any of the grades 1 through 6 in the 50 states andthe District of Columbia were included in the sampling frame.3 Specialeducation and alternative schools, ungraded schools, and schools in theoutlying territories were excluded from the frame prior to sampling.With these exclusions, the final sampling frame consisted ofapproximately 59000 eligible schools.

The sample was stratified by size of school, region (Northeas4 Central,Southeas4 and West), and udxmicity status (city, urban fringe, town, andrural). Within each of the major stra@ schools were sorted byenrollment size, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced pricelunch, and percentage of minority students. The allocation of the sampleto the major strata was made in a manner that was expected to bereasonably efficient for national estimates, as well as for estimates formajor subclasses. Schools within a stratum were sampled withprobabilities proportionate to the estimated number of elementaryteachers in the school.

It should be noted that the number of elementary teachers is not availablein the CCD school file; the estimates for this figure wem derived byapplying an overall pupil-to-teacher ratio to the aggregate CCDenrollment counts to derive a rough measure of size for each school inthe frame.4 It should also be noted that the number of “eligible” schoolsincluded all schools that have any of the grades 1 through 6. Thus, aschool coded as K- 12 in CCD would be eligible for the first-stageselection; however, only teachers of kindergarten through grade 6 wouldbe eligible for inclusion in the survey at the second stage of selection.5

Teacher Sampling Each of the 525 schools in the sample was contacted during December1992 and asked to provide a list of all elementary-grade teachers forsampling purposes. Eligible teachem included all full-time pemonsteaching a regular kindergarten through sixth grade class. Excluded fromthe list were part-time and itinerant teachexx, substitute teachers, teachem’aides, special education teachers, special subject teachers (those teaching

3Although kinderganen teadcrs in regular elementa~ schools were eligible for the sumey, those inpreprimary schools were not. Therefore, preprimary schools were not included in the samplingframe.

4Pupil-to-teacher ratios for elementary schools vq wi&ly by state (see NCES E.D. Tabs, PublicElementary and !kcondaw Aggregate Data for School Year 1990-91 and Fiscal Year 1990, NCES92-033). The national average for school year 1990-91 is about 19 pupils per teacher.

5The 59,589 schools in the sampling frame included 1,784 schools that provi& instmction in thesecondary grades 9 through 12 in addition to the elementary grades 1 through 6. These 1,784schools account for about 3 percent of all elementary teachers.

15

Response Rates

only physical education, music, etc.), prekindergarten teachers, and anyother teachers who did not teach a kindergarten through sixth grade class.Only full-time, regular elementary teachem wem included in this sumeybecause it was thought that their experience with performance evaluationmight differ from that of secondary school teachem and special subjectteachem. The scope of a Fast Response survey does not permit a largeenough sample to compare subpopulations. A list of 8,869 teachers wascompiled from the schools. Schools were asked to indicate whichteachem were in their first year of teaching in that school. Nine percentof the teachem on the list were in their first year of teaching at the school.Because these teachem may not have had the opportunity to be formallyevaluated, they were declmd ineligible for this survey. From thismodified list, a final sample of 1,070 teachem of grades K-6 was drawn.On average, two regular, full-time teachem we~ sampled fkom eachschool, one from kindergarten through grade 3 and one ffom grades 4through 6. The survey data were weighted to reflect these sampling rates(probability of selection) and were adjusted for nonresponse.

At the first stage of sampling of 525 schools, 5 schools were found to beout of the scope of the study (because they were closed or othenvise noteligible). Of the remaining 520 eligible schools, 493 provided completelists of teachers. The school-level response was 95 percent (493responding schools divided by the 520 eligible schools in the sample).

In March 1993, questionnaires wem mailed to 1,070 teachers at theirschools. A copy of the survey form is attached to this report. Teacherswere asked to complete the questionnaire with reference to their mostrecent teacher performance evaluation or, if they had not been evaluatedpreviously, they were asked to provide general information and tocomplete the two opinion questions. Thirteen teachers we~ found to beout of scope (no longer at the school or otherwise not eligible), leaving1,057 eligible teachem in the sample. Telephone followup ofnonnxpondents was initiated in mid-March; data collection wascompleted by late May with 986 teachers completing the sumey. Ofthese, 541 teachers (55 percent) completed the mailed questionnaire, andtelephone interviews wem conducted with the remaining 445 teachers(45 percent). The teacher-level response was 93 percent (986 teacherscompleted the questiomaire divided by 1,057 eligible teachers in thesample). The overall study response rate was 88 percent (94.8 percentrate of school response multiplied by the 93.3 percent response rate at theteacher level). The weighted overall response rate was 91 percent (95.3percent weighted school response rate multiplied by the 95.2 percentweighted teacher response rate). Item nonresponse ranged from 0.0percent to 3.3 percent. The majority of items with missing data had alower than 1 percent nonresponse rate; therefore, missing data wereexcluded fium the analysis.

16

Sampling and The data were weighted to produce national estimates. The weights

Nonsampling Errors were designed to adjust for variable probabilities of selection anddifferential nonresponse. A final poststratification adjustment was madeso that the weighted teacher counts equaled the corresponding estimatedteacher counts from the CCD frame within cells defined by size ofschool, region, and urbanicity. The findings in this report are estimatesbased on the sample selected and, consequently, are subject to samplingvariability.

The survey estimates are also subject to nonsampling errom that can arisebecause of nonobservation (nonresponse or noncoverage) errors, errorsof reporting, and errors made in collection of the data. These errors cansometimes bias the data. NonSampling errors may include suchproblems as the differences in the nxpondents’ interpretation of themeaning of the questions, memo~ effects, misrecording of responses,incorrect editing, coding, and data entry, differences related to theparticular time the survey was conducted, or errors in data preparation.While general sampling theory can be used in part to determine how toestimate the sampling variability of a statistic, nonsampling errors are noteasy to measum and, for measurement purposes, usually require that anexperiment be conducted as part of the data collection procedures or thatdata external to the study be used.

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the questiomaim waspretested with elementary teachers like those who completed the sumey.During the design of the survey and the survey pretest, an effort wasmade to check for consistency of interpretation of questions and toeliminate ambiguous items. The questiomaire and instructions wereextensive y reviewed by the National Center for Education Statistics, theOffIce of Research, and the Center for Research on EducationalAccountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE). Manual andmachine editing of the questionnaire nxponses were conducted to checkthe data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing orinconsistent items were recontacted by telephone. Data were keyed with100 percent verification.

Variances The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates due tosampling. It indicates the variability of a sample estimate that would beobtained fmm all possible samples of a given design and size. Standarderrors are used as a measure of the precision expected fmm a particularsample. If all possible samples wem surveyed under similar conditions,intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 standard errors above aparticular statistic would ir,clude the true population parameter beingestimated in about 95 percent of the samples. This is a 95 percentcontldence interval. For example, the estimated percentage of teachenreporting that their last teacher performance evaluation included aformally rated observation is 92 percent, and the estimated standard erroris 1.0 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the statisticextends from [92 - (1.0 times 1.96)] to [92 + (1.0 times 1.96)], or fmm 90to 94 percent.

Estimates of standard errm were computed using a technique known asjackknife replication. As with any replication method, jackknife

17

BackgroundInformation

replication involves constructing a number of subsarnples (replicates)from the full sample and computing the statistic of intemt for eachreplicate. The mean square error of the replicate estimates around thefull sample estimate provides an estimate of the variance of the statistic(see Welter 1985, Chapter 4). To construct the replications, 30 stratifiedsubsamples of the full sample were created and then dropped one at atime to define 30 jackknife replicates (see Welter 1985, page 183). Aproprietary computer program (wESVAR), available at Westat, Inc., wasused to calculate the estimates of standard errors. The software runsunder IBM/OS and VAX/VMS systems.

fie survey was performed under contract with Westat, Inc., a researchfirm in Rockville, Maryland, using the Fast Response Survey System(FRSS). FRSS was established in 1975 by NCES. It was designed tocollect small amounts of policy-oriented data quickly and with minimumburden on respondents. Over 45 surveys have been conducted throughFRSS. Recent FRSS reports (available through the Government PrintingOffIce) include the following:

Public School Kindergarten Teachem’ Views on children’sReadiness for School, 1993 (NCES 93-410).

Public School District Suxvey on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-FreeSchools, E.D. TABS (NCES 92-008).

Public School Principal Survey on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-FreeSchools, E.D. TABS (NCES 92-007).

Teacher Survey on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools, E.D.TABS (NCES 91-091).

Services and Resources for Children in Public Libraries, 1988-89(NCES 90-098).

Westat’s Project Director was Elizabeth Farris, and the Survey Managerfor the FRSS Su~ey on Teacher Performance Evaluations was Mary JoNolin. Judi Caxpenter was the NCES Project Officer. The data wemrequested by Sue Klein, Office of Educational Research andImprovement, NCES, in coordination with Daniel Stufflebeam and ArlenGullickson, Center for Research on Educational Accountability andTeacher Evaluation, Western Michigan University. Dr. Stufflebeamprovided an i: _itial draft of some sumey items and collaborated withWestat and NCES on their fwt.her development.

The report was reviewed by John Crawford, Director of Planning andEducation, Millard Public Schools; Rita Fey, Education ProgramSpecialism Learning and Instruction Division, Office of Research, NCES;Sue Klein, OffIce of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES;Robert Nearine, Special Assistant, Evaluation, Research and Testing,Hartford Public Schools; and Darrell ROOL Assistant Professor ofEducational Administration, University of Dayton. Within NCES, reportnwiewem were Sharon Bobbitt, Elementary/Secondary Education

18

Statistics Division; Patricia Dabbs, Education Assessment Division;Bernard Greene, PostSecondary Education Statistics Division; MaryRollefson, Data Development Divisiow and Jeffrey Williams,Postsecondary Education Statistics Division.

For more information about the Fast Response Survey System or theSurvey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, contact Judi Carpenter,Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, Special Surveysand Analysis Branch, Office of Educational Research and hnprovemen~National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20208-5651, telephone (202) 219-1333.

ReferencesDarling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., and Pease, S. (1983). “TeacherEvaluation in the Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature.”Review of Educational Research, 53:285-328.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). “Teacher Evaluation in Transition:Emerging Roles and Evolving Methods.” In The New Handbook ofTeacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondhry SchoolTeachers. Eds. J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond. Newbury P@,CA: Sage Publications.

Dwyer, C. A., and Stufflebeam, D.L. (forthcoming). “Evaluation forEffective Teaching.” In Handbook of Educational Psychology. Ed.D. Berliner.

Millman, J. (198 1). “Introduction.” In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation.Ed. J. Millmam Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Millman, J., and Dariing-Hamrnond, L. (1990). The New Handbook ofTeacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondiwy SchoolTeachers. Newbury Pm CA: Sage Publications.

Bickers, P. M., comp. (1988). “Teacher Evaluation Practices andProcedures.” The ERS Survey of Evaluation: Practices and Procedures.The Educational Research Service.

Stiggins, R.J., and Duke, D.L. (1988). The Case for Commitment toTeacher Growth: Research on Teacher Evaluation. New York: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Stufflebeam, D.L. ( 1991). “An Introduction to the Center for Researchon Educational Accountability (CREATE).” Journal of PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 5:85-92.

The WESVAR Procedures. (1989). Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., and Bernstein,H.T. (1984). Teacher Evaluation: A Study of Eflective Practices. SantaMonica CA: Rand Corporation.

19

Definitions

Welter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. Spnnger-Verlag.

Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe - A data tapecontaining 85,000 records, one for each public elementary and secondaryschool in the 50 states, District of Colurnbi4 and 5 outlying areas, asreported to the National Center for Education Statistics by the stateeducation agencies for 1990-91. Records on this file contain the stateand federal identification nurnbm, name, address, and telephone numberof the school, county name and PIPS code, school type code, enrollmentsize, and other codes for selected characteristics of the school.

Teacher Performance Evaluation - The process of determining howwell a person has fulfilled his or her teaching responsibilities.

Formal Evaluation - The totality of the systematic process of teacherperformance evaluation within a given time period.

Urbanicity

City - A central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

Urban fringe - A place within an MSA of a large or mid-size central cityand defined as urban by the U.S. Burwu of Census.

Town - A place not within an MSA, but with a population gnater than orequal to 2,500, and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of Census.

Rural - A place with a population less than 2300 and defined as rural bythe U.S. Bureau of Census.

Region

Northeast region - Connecticu~ Delaware, District of Colurnbi& Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jemey, New Yo~Pennsylvania Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Central region - Illinois, Indiana Iowa Kansas, Michigan, Mimesota,Missouri, Nebraska North Dakota, Ohio, South Dako@ and Wisconsin.

Southeast region - Alabama Arkansas, Florid% Georgia, Kentucky,Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina Tennessee,Virginia, and West Virginia.

West region - Alaska Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,Montana Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah,Washington, and Wyoming.

20

Tables of Estimates and Standard Errors

21

Table 1.--Percent of public elementary school teachers whose performance has been formally evaluated atevaluations, status when evaluated, date of last evaluation, and existence of written policies,characteristics: 1993

their current school, number ofby selected teacher and school

,Number of formal Teacher certification Date of last Writ!en teacher

evaluations in status when last evaluation evaluationcument school evaluated policy exists

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic 15 Probationary Academic Academic state District School

1-5 6-14 or Advanced Standad or year year 91/92 has written has written has writtenmore temporary 92f93 or before policy policy policy

All teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 42

354359

4145

454636

403549

45453641

29 21 74 5 72 28 56 90 80

Current teacher cett.ificationstatus

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stan&rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . .

302934

3528

8

9600

687281

322819

595557

899095

817991

*1

100

GradeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3028

3027

2121

7574

46

7271

2829

5656

9090

8081

E Number of yeara teaching inCU1’TCllt school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

513111

102327

42354

767672

1421

796968

213132

586052

919190

827980

Enrollment size of schoolLesathan 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 6tM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

273526

332925

202320

757474

446

746972

263128

485564

939088

838078

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31302826

24253633

20222219

72757478

7343

68727475

32282625

59575354

89939091

78778286

* Less than 0.5 percent.

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Stiti~Cs, Faw Reqonse Survey System, SUNCy on Teacher Perfornumce Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table la.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers whose performance has been formally evaluated at their currentschool, number of evaluations, status when evaluated, date of last evaluation, and existence of written policies, by selected teacherand school characteristics: 1993

Teacher ● nd schoolCharacteristic

Allteachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Current teacher certificationaatua

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PrOhtionary or Temporary . . . .

GradeKthrou@ 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of y- tea- inCurreti school

lthrough 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eardlrnent &e of schoolLeaathan 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400- 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More thm600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of formalevaluation incurrent school

w1.5

3.32.07.0

2.02.1

3.03.02.0

3.04.02.2

3.04.03.04.3

2.0

4.02.57.5

2.43.0

3.03.03.0

3.34.02.5

3.04.04.05.0

2.0

3.42.15.0

2.22.2

2.03.03,0

3.33.02.0

2.44.04.34.5

Teacher certification I Date of Iaat Written teachermtua when Iaat evaluation evaluation

evaluated policy exiata

Probationary Academic Academic state District SchoolMvanced Standatd or year year 9U92 has written haa written has written

tenqxmry 92/93 or before *Y poliiy policy

1.5 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.4

1.5 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.0 3.1;:: 0.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0

7.2 7.2 6.2 3.2 5.2

2.2 2A 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.02.2 23 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0

2.0 3.0 2.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.12.3 3.0 1.0 2.1 2.1 3.0 2.0 3.03.0 3.0 0.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

3.0 3.0 1.2 3.5 3.5 4.4 2.0 3.03.0 3.3 1.5 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.0 2.03.0 3.1 1.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.1

2.2 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.03.1 3.1 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.03.0 3.2 2.0 3.2 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 2.2 3.0

- Estimate of atendard error was not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated to be less than 0.5 percent or 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statiatica, Faat Response Suxvey System, SuIVey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 2.--Percent of public elementary school teachers who report various evaluation procedures, by selected teacher and schoolcharacteristics: 1993

I Evaluation procedures

Teacher and schoolIndicator of teacher pcrformancel

criteria Teacher Teacher School Teacher cancharacteristic

Teacher Pofifolios Formally Informal Video- Student Student known received received has ● n submit

test scores of teacher’s rated obarxvations tapes questionnaires test Scores before verbal written appeal writtenwork observations evaluation explanation report process response

Ailtcachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen last evaluated

Advanced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . .

GradeE KthrQugh 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of years teaching inCUITCllt school

lthrough 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment aizc of schoolLcssthan 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400- 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morethan 6(X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 19 92 69 1 2 4 94 97 91

919193

9191

909290

949189

88929194

87

888789

8789

888985

858690

86908686

95

969590

9497

949595

959596

92989695

349

221820

899295

726864

210

411

93 9894 9796 97

446

45

1919

9292

6968

12

12

43

94 9795 97

535

231817

929292

676969

211

212

354

93 9894 9895 96

435

172119

939290

766765

13●

122

344

94 9794 9695 98

5462

21172115

92938993

69686969

1121

6324

1222

94 9995 9795 9891 93

%ess than 0.5 percent.

lPercenta add more than 1CN3 bccauac teachers reported multiple Micatom.

SOURCE: U.S. Dcpartmsnt of Education, National Center for Education Stati~a, W Reaponac Sumey Syatcm, Swey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 2a.--Standard emors of the percent of public elementary school teachers who report various evaluation procedures by selected teacherand school characteristics: 1993

I Evaluation pfOCedUre8

Teacher ● nd schoolIndicator of teacher performance

criteria Teacher Teacher School T~cher canchamcteriaticTeacher Pofifolios Formally rnformal Vid~ St&w Studeti known received received has an submit

test scores of teacher’s mted Obmwtiona tapes queUionnaiia tea atoms before verbal written appeal writtenwork observation evaluation explanation repmt proceaa response

Allteachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen Iaat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or teuqmrary . . . .

Gmde~ Kthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4th through (lth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of yeara kaching incurrent school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ormorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLes8than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4a)- 6oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 6(X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U*an fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.0 1.3 1.0 2.0 0.4

1.00.4

0.41.0

1.01.00.5

0.41.10.2

1.01.01.20.4

0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.01.02.2

1.01.0

1.01.01.1

1.01.41.0

1.01.01.02.5

2.0

3.02.05.0

2.31.3

2.02.03.0

2.43.02.0

2.02.02.24.2

1.0

1.4

H

1.21.1

2.01.41.2

2.01.41.3

2.01.11.32.0

1.31.05.0

2.42,06.0

2.01.23.0

4.02.07.0

1.40.41.3

1,51.04.2

2.11.03.0

2.41.04.0

1.01.0

2.02.2

1.21.2

2.02.0

0.51.0

1.11.0

1.11.0

1.11.4

1.5 2.32.32.0

2.02.02.0

3.23.32.2

1.01.01.0

1.02.01.0

2.01.11.4

1.52.02.0

1.01.3

1.01.01.3

3.04.02.4

2.12.02.0

3.03.03.1

1.01.01.0

1.22.01.3

1.42.01.4

2.02.21.5

1.22.02.01.1

3.02.33.14.0

2.01.43.02.0

3.03.14.04.3

1.01.01.01.1

2.01.11.12.0

1.32.02.02.3

2.02.52.22.1

– Estimate of standard mm was not derived becauae it is based on a statiatic dmated to be Ieaa than 0.5 pemeti or 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Stati&s, Fast Reaponae Survey System, Sumey on Teacher Performance Evaluation, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 3.-Percent of public elementaqshould be considered, theperformance evaluation, andgroup: 1993

school teachers indicating whether various aspects of teachingextent to which each was considered in their last teacherperception of the competence level of the evaluating person or

Extent to which it was Perception of evaluator’sconsidered competence to evaluate

Aspect of Should beteaching comi&red Great Moderate hall or Great Modemte Small or

not ● t ● ll not ● t all

Ovemll teacherperformance . . . . . . . . .

Subject matterknowledge . . . . . . . . . . .

Claasroommanagement . . . . . . . . .

Instmctionaltechniques . . . . . . . . . . .

Helping eachstudent● chieve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teaching demanhunique to thestudents in thecksrcmm.. . . . . . . . . . .

Equitable treatmentof atudenta ● ndcolleagues . . . . . . . . . . . .

Professionaldevelopmeti. . .actlvltles . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperation withother schoolpersomel . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Neighborhood orschool problemsaffecting one’steaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Involving parentain the learningprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grading methods . . . . . .

Teat constmctionskills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

99

99

99

97

95

89

80

78

69

65

56

49

90

65

84

84

63

53

43

34

32

13

14

10

7

9

32

16

14

30

33

29

39

36

27

29

29

25

1

3

1

2

8

14

28

27

32

60

57

61

68

73

62

74

68

63

55

59

57

55

44

43

38

33

24

32

23

28

29

35

29

30

31

33

33

36

36

3

5

3

4

8

10

13

13

14

23

24

27

31

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Responac Survey System, Survey on TeacherPerformance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

27

..—

Table 3a.–Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating whethervarious aspects of teaching should be considered, the extent to which each was consideredin their last teacher performance evaluation, and perception of the competence level of theevaluating person or group: 1993

Extent to which it was Perception of evaluator’sconsidered competence to evaluate

Aspect of Should beteaching comidemd Great Moderate SmaJl or Great Moderate Small or

not at all not at all

(lvemll teacherperformance . . . . . . . . .

Subject matterknowledge . . . . . . . . . . .

Claaaroommanagement . . . . . . . . .

Inat.mctionaltechniques . . . . . . . . . . .

Helping eachstudentachieve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teaching demandsunique to theatudenta in theclaaamom . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equitable treatmentof studenta andcolleagues . . . . . . . . . . . .

Professional&velopmeti. . .actw:hes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperation withother schoolpemonnel . . ..o . . . . . . . .

Neighborhood orschool pI’0bkm8affecting one’steaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Involving parentain the learning

proceaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gmding methods . . . . . .

Test constmctionskills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

2.0

1.4

2.0

2.0

1.1

2.0

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.0

1.4

2.0

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.1

1.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

1.4

2.0

1.5

1.3

0.3

1.0

0.3

0.5

1.0

1.1

2.0

1.4

1.3

1.4

2.1

1.5

1.3

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0 1.0

1.5 1.0

2.0 1.0

1.5 1.0

1.5 1.0

2.0 1.2

2.0 1.3

2.0 1.1

2.0 1.3

2.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

1.5 2.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Reaponae Survey System, Survey on TeacherPerformance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

28

_

Table 4.--Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actually considered to a great extent andthat should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993

Overall teaching Subject matter ClassmOm Instmctionalperformance knowledge management techniques

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic Was Should be Waa Should be Was Should be Waa Should be

considered considered considered conaidere.d considered comidercd considered considered

All teachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen last evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . .

GradeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of years teaching incurrent school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLess than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90 99 65 99 84 99 84 99

938988

99100100

736360

979999

868382

999997

838581

9899

100

9188

99100

6566

98100

8582

99100

8583

9999

909288

10010099

606669

9710098

858284

999999

868582

1009998

899091

1009999

666466

1009799

838285

10097

100

848286

989999

89948987

9910099

100

65656764

98999899

84868480

991009998

82888780

99999997

Table 4.–Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actually considered to a great extent andthat should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993 --Continued

Helping each student Teaching demands Equitable treatment of Professionalachieve unique to the atude~ studcnta ● nd colleagues development ● ctivities

Teacher ● nd schoolcharacteristic Was Should be Wag Shcndd be Was Should be Was Should be

considered considered Conaidemd conaidemd considered considered considered considered

\

Alltcachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen last evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or tcmpomry . . . .

GmdeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of years tsaching incurrent school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment sin of schoolLessthan 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400- 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 97 53 95 43 89 34 80

373434

798085

696164

979794

575755

989493

464239

878993

3533

7982

5648

9495

4342

8890

6560

9795

898791

343534

817882

646163

969698

555257

959494

434342

495255

959495

394742

889287

353533

808180

646362

979697

83778277

60696457

97989695

51595246

95949594

41434935

89879090

30413926

Table 4.--Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actually considered to a great extent andthat should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993 --Continued

—

Cooperation with Neighbmbood and Involving parents in Gmdq T- constructionschool personnel dud pmbkms the leuning proce8a methods skills

Teacher ● d xhoolchuacteristic wag Should be wa$ ShOuldbe Wu Should be was Should be was Should bc

conaidercd considered Coruided Colnidcred considered considered con8idercd considered considered Considered

All teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 78 12 69 65 10 56 7 49

Teacher certification statuswhen 18* evaluated

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .stmdard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or tempomy . . . . .

373026

837774

151120

756a72

231119

726468

15104

635450

514762

a77

Gradew Kthmugh 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3231

7978

1213

6969

1512

6664

912

5459

78

4554

Number of years teaching inCUKIWlt school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

292936

807778

141112

726968

141413

676366

81112

595158

489

524549

Enrollment size of schoolLe88than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morcthan 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 -3029

817976

111611

647370

151413

646666

118

12

565457

489

484651

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1716

85

29343527

79807778

76686564

15151410

67626864

101110

9

57575455

9776

51484450

SOURCE: U.S. ~ti of Education, National Cemr fw Educatioa ~ F- Req Survey System, Survey on Teacher Mfbrmmc e Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 4a.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actuallyconsidered to a great extent and should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and schoolcharacteristics: 1993

Ovemll teaching Subject matter Claaaroom Inatmctionalperformance knowledge management techniques

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic Was Should be Was Should be was Should be wa8 Should be

considered considered considered considered considered considered considered comidemd

Allteachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen last evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . .

GmdeKthmugh 3xd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

uN 4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of years teaching incurrent school

lthrough 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLess than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400- 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 0.3 2.0 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.5 0.4

2.01.27.4

1.00.3

3.42.09.0

1.30.41.0

2.51.55.3

1.00.43.0

3.0 1.12.0 1.06.0

1.42.0

0.40.3

2.22.3

1.00.2

2.01.5

1.00.3

2.0 1.02.2 1.0

2.12.02.1

3.03.03.1

1.10.31.0

2.23.02.4

1.01.00.5

2.13.02.0

—1.01.0

0.31.0

2.02.02.0

0.31.00.4

4.03.33.0

0.51.10.4

3.03.02.0

2.43.02.3

1.01.01.0

1.20.4

2.01.42.33.0

0.40.51.0

4.03.03.54.0

1.01.01.01.0

3.02.42.33.4

1.00.51.01.4

3.02.13.03.4

1.01.00.51.4

Table 4a.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actuallyconsidered to a great extent and should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by Selected teacher and schoolcharacteristics: 1993 -- Continued

Helping each student Teaching demands Equitable treatment of Professionalachieve unique to the atudcnta atudenta and colleagues devekqmwnt activities

Teacher and achcxdchamctcriatic Was Should be Waa Should be Was Should be Wan Should be

considered considered cooaidemd Considered considered considered considered considered

AUt eachera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification atatuawhen Iaat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary Ortclnporary . . . .

GradeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ww 4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of yaara teach~ ioCurrcti school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrolhnent size of schoolLcaa than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400- 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morcthan 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.1

4.02.09.0

1.11.04.0

1.01.04.2

4.02.09.0

2.41.33.5

3.42.06.1

4.01.46.0

2.33.0

1.01.1

2.02.4

1.11.1

2.12.2

1.42.0

2.02.0

1.32.0

2.33.03.2

1.21.41.0

3.13.13.1

131.21.4

3.53.03.0

2.22.12.0

3.03.03.0

2.43.02.0

3.03.13.0

1.21.31.0

3.03.02.3

2.01 .s1.2

3.33.13.0

2.42.02.0

3.33.02.4

2.52.02.0

3.03.04.14.5

1.01.12.02.0

3.13.03.04.0

1.21.52.02.0

3.03.43.44.2

2.03.02.12.1

2.53.34.04.0

2.23.02.33.5

Table 4a.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that were actuallyconsidered to a great extent and should be considered in formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and schoolcharacteristics: 1993 --Continued

Cooperation with Neighborhood ● nd Involving parents in Grading Teat constructionschool personnel school problems the karning process methods

Teacher and schoolskills

chamcteristic Was Should be was Should be was Should be Was Should bc was Should beconsidered conaidercd conaidercd conaidercd considered conaidercd considered considered Conaidcrcd conaidercd

Allteachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0

4.42.28.0

1.1 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

Teacher certification statuswhen last evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . . .

3.51.37.1

3.32.16.0

3.31.36.1

4.02.08.0

2.41.03.0

2.52.08.2

2.21.04.2

3.32.19.1

3.02.06.4

GmdeKthmugh 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xNumber of years teaching inCU1’Md school

lthrough 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ormorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.01.2

2.43.0

2.42.3

4.03.03.1

2.02.0

2.02.0

2.22.4

1.42.0

2.03.0

1.32.0

2.12.1

2.02.02.2

3.03.23.1

2.02.12.2

2.42.02.0

3.02.52.4

1.51.42.0

3.23.02.3

1.32.02.0

3.03.03.0

2.42.33.0

Endmcnt size of schoolLess than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.34.03.0

2.32.42.0

2.03.02.0

4.02.43.0

3.12.43.0

2.22.02.0

2.32.22.33.0

4.03.03.0

1.32.01.2

2.02.02.02.1

4.03.12.4

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.03.02.11.4

3.04.04.04.0

2.03.02.33.2

2.53.23.24.0

3.03.13.44.0

3.04.03.24.1

3.03.43.35.0

2.32.33.04.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Rcaponac Survey Syatcm, Suxvey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 5.--Percent of public elementary school teachers reporting various reaso~ for and outwm~ of their last evaluation, by selected teacherand school characteristics: 1993

Reaama for laat evaluation’ Evaluation outcome

Regularlyachedukd Temre Merit Otherevaluated pay 2reaeona

An ● ccurate opportunity to Uacfil for● sacaamam of design plan for improving

teaching profeaaionel tithingpetiormance development

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic

I 1 I

All teachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher cefiification statuswhen laat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GradeK through 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of years teaching incurrent school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ormorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLess than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 9 6 1 89 63 74

969895

68

24

464

110

918893

696175

797283

9798

810

65

11

9088

6068

7473

979798

467

21●

889089

616563

767373

999697

?7

10

547

111

859091

626265

687577

98979699

118

104

5756

1101

87919087

74787566

62666262

1 Percents add to more than 1(X) becauae tcachera reported more than one reaeon.

2“Other reaaona” include for a promotion or at the teacher’a request.

x Less than 0.5 pexvent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Uucation, National Center for Education Statiatica, Faat Reaponee Survey Syatcm, Survey on Teacher Performance Evaluationa, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 5a.–Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers reporting various reasons for and outcomes of their lastevaluation, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993

I Reaaona for lmt evaluationI

Evaluation outcome

Regularly An ● ccurate opportunity toTeacher ● nd school Uacfid for

scheduled Merit Other asaeaarncnt of design plan forcharactcriatic Temtre inqmving

evaluated VY reaaona teachq pmfeaaional teachingperformance development

All tcachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen laat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FroMionary or temporary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GradeK through 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m 4th through 6thm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of yeara teechbg inCU1’Milt school

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of echoolLess than 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.3

1.51.04.0

1.01.0

2.01.06.2

1.12.0

2.01.23.0

1.41.2

2.01.5

2.01.04.0

1.42.0

4.02.07.3

2.42.1

3.02.05.1

2.22.0

1.1 2.0 1.2 2.5 2.0 3.1 2.11.3 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.01.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.2 2.1

1.0 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.41.3 2.0 1.3 3.0 2.0 3.3 3.01.0 2.0 2.3 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.0

1.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.01.1 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.01.5 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.2 3.5 3.51.0 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.2 5.0 4.3

SOURCE: U.S. Dcpattment of Education, National Center for Education Statiatic~ Fact Reaponee Survey Syetem, Survey on Teacher Performance Evaluation, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 6.--Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating the extent to which various uses of teacher performance evaluations are anobjective and should be an objective in their school: 1993

h ● objective Should be ● n objectiveUae of teacher

performance evaluations Great Modemte small Not ● t Great Modemte small Not ● textent extent exted au extent extent exteti all

To guide improvement ofteaching skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To recognize ● nd reinforceteaching excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To help teachers fwus onatudent outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To plan inaervice educationactivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To make tenure andpromotion decisiona . . . . . . . . . . . .

To discharge incompetentteachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To help teachers definestandards for their peera . . . . . . .

To detemnine teachem’ paylevels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To give adminiatratoragreater control overteacher job performance . . . . . . .

61

51

46

33

32

18

13

9

15

30

30

33

34

24

27

23

8

32

8

13

14

18

16

31

21

9

25

2

8

8

16

29

24

42

75

27

81

70

62

51

33

45

23

14

11

18

24

29

36

39

33

38

23

32

1

4

5

9

14

14

19

13

26

●

3

3

5

15

8

20

50

31

● Less than 0.5 percent.

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statitics, Fax Response Sunrey System, Sumey on Teacher Petiormance Evaluationa, FRSS 44, 1993.

.

Table 6a.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating the extent to which various uses of teacherperformance evaluations are an objective and should be an objective in their school: 1993

I Ia an objcetive I Should be ● n objectiveUse of teacher

performance evaluations Great Moderate small Not at Great Moderate small Not atextent extent extent all extent extent extent all

To guide improvement ofteaching skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To recognize and reinforceteaching excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To help teachers focus onstudent outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To plan insemice educationactivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To make tenure andpromotion decisions . . . . . . . . . . . .

To discharge incompetentteachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To help teachera definestandanis for their peers . . . . . . .

To determine teachers’ paylevels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To give administratorsgreater control overteacher job performance . . . . . . .

2.0

2.0

1.4

2.0

2.1

2.0

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

2.0

1.5

1.4

2.0

1.5

1.4

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.3

1.0

2.0

1.4

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.3

0.3

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.0

1.3

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.4

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.1

1.2

1.0

1.4

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.4

1.4

0.3

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.3

1.1

2.0

1.3

2.0

0.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.5

2.1

1.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic., Fast Response SuWey System, Sutvey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 7.--Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that are an objective and should bean objective toa great extent of formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993

Guide improvement of Recognize ● nd reinforceteaching skills tcach~ excellence

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic Is an Should be 1s an Should be

objective an objective objective objective

Help tcachera focus on Plan inscrvice Make tenure andWent outcomes education activitiern promotion dccisiona

Iaan Should be Ia ● n Should be Is ● n Should beobjective ● n objective objective ● n objective objective ● n objective

46 62 33 51 32 33Alltcachem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification atatuawhen last evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . .

GmdeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

wQ Number of yearn teaching in

cument school1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ormorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLcssthan 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 6(X1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 81 50 70

586267

818086

514761

736968

484460

666166

373151

594952

333140

303339

6162

8082

5051

6971

4645

6361

3333

5054

3132

3234

626161

827982

525347

737365

504543

676260

293436

505152

353030

353331

606262

818181

:52

686873

414848

596563

253438

455454

353228

363331

59656160

80838279

47535350

69756669

45574736

61646560

38333323

55455844

33303526

34363128

Table 7.–Percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that are an objective and should be an objective toa great extent of formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993 -- continued

, 1 I

Discharge incompetent I Help tcachera defineI

Determine teachera’I

Give ● dminiatratorateachera @andards for pecra pay level greater control

Teacher and schoolcharacteristic Is an Should be Iaan Should be Is an Should be Ia an Should be

objective an objective objective objective objective an objective objective ● n objectiveI 1 I I I 1 1 I

All teachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 45 13 23 9 14 15 11

Teacher certification statuswhen Iaat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or tcmpomry . .

151220

899

171315

141611

91212

161823

1719

434543

262319

GmdeKthmugh 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4rhthrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 Number of yeara teaching inCUf’IMlt school

lthrough 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4248

1314

2126

97

1413

1713

1112

232224

910

7

161413

111916

111112

121922

221616

394548

121314

Enrollment size of schoolL.cssthan 40 . . . . ..o . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .More than 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

444445

91317

192227

51010

121416

181415

139

12

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27212320

13776

16161012

14151421

1114

714

17171722

41484546

161216

7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Faat Reaponae Survey System, Survey on Teacher Performance Evaluations, FRSS 44, 1993.

Table 7a.--Standard errors of the percent of public elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that are an objective andshould be an objective to a great extent of formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics:1993

Guide improvement of Recognize ● nd reinforce Help tcachera focus on Plan inacrvice Make tenure andtcachlng kills @aching excellence student outcomca education ● ctivities promotion dcciaiona

Teacher and schoolchamcteriatic Is an Should be ra ● n Should be Ia an Should be Is an Should be Is an Should be

objective an objective objective objective objective ● n objective objective ● n objective objective ● n objective

AMtcachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher certification statuswhen Iaat evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or tempormy . .

GradeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4th through 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of yaam teaching inCUrMXit school

lthruugh 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 orrnorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enrollment size of schoolLcssthan 4(M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morcthan 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.0 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.6

4.12.07.3

3.21.75.6

5.02.48.0

3.62.18.9

3.52.07.1

3.92.35.4

4.02.07.2

3.32.29.4

3.32.57.0

3.22.06.2

2.22.3

2.01.8

3.02.2

2.72.3

2.02.2

2.62.3

2.13.0

2.02.7

2.53.0

2.22.2

3.03.02.5

2.62.71.8

3.43.23.3

2.92.63.1

3.03.03.0

3.62.62.2

3.43.03.0

3.03.23.0

3.23.33.1

2.82.52.4

3.33.13.0

2.43.02.4

4.23.02.2

3.42.62.3

3.33.42.3

3.02.93.2

3.03.23.0

3.33.22.7

4.03.23.0

3.53.32.6

3.04.03.53.4

2.92.82.32.4

2.33.54.44.2

2.63.24.23.8

3.23.14.44.0

3.32.52.93.1

3.03.34.23.5

3.33.53.33.7

4.04.04.14.0

3.03.43.33.7

Table 7a.--Standard errors of the percent of publicshould be an objective to a great extent1993 -- Continued

elementary school teachers indicating various aspects of teaching that are an objective andof formal teacher performance evaluations, by selected teacher and school characteristics:

Discharge incompetent Help teachera define Dcternb teachers’ Give adminiatmtorateachera @andar& for peers pay level greater cormol

Teacher ● nd schoolcharactcriatic Ia ● n Should bc Ia ● n Shalld be Ia ● n Should be la ● n should bc

objective ● n objective objective objective objective ● n objective objective ● n objective

Alltcachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0

Teacher certification atatuawhen Iaet evaluated

Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Probationary or temporary . .

2.42.06.1

3.12.58.3

2.3

:::

3.21.37.6

2.01.54.0

2.51.44.7

3.12.05.4

1.6

:::

GradeKthrough 3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84ththrough 6th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.02.3

2.03.02.4

2.02.8

t .32.0

1.52.3

2.72.42.5

2.01.0

1.71.7

2.02.0

1.31.8

Number of yeara teaching inCUI’fWit echool

1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.43.23.3

2.42.02.0

2.02.51.4

1.72.01.7

2.02.43.0

2.31.82.0

Enrolhnent size of schoolLesathan ao............. . . . . .400-600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MOrethan 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.02.32.0

3.22.53.0

H2.1

u2.6

2.02.42.0

2.32.21.8

3.02.32.0

2.21.51.6

Urbanicity of schoolCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.03.23.03.4

3.03.63.14.3

2.2

:::2.0

2.52.92.92.8

3.02.02.02.0

2.02.62.32.5

3.02.32.24.0

).92.32.03.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Faat Rerponee Survey Sy~m, Swey a Teacher krformance Evaluation, FRSS 44, 1993.

i *

Survey Form

43

-,

U.S. DEPARTMEm OF EDUCATION FORM APPROVEDNATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS O.M.B. No.: 18504681

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20208-5651 EXPIRATION DATE: 11 /93

SURVEY ON TEACHER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM

This survey is authorized by iaw (20 U.S.C. 1221 e-l). Whiie you are not required to respond, your cooperation isneeded to make the resuits of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

D E F I N I T I O N S F O R THE SURVEY:

Teacher performance evaluation - the process of determining how W a parMM .hw fulfilled hie oc her .teachbgmsponsibiiltiw

Formai evaluation - the Waiity of the systematic process dteacher performance evaluation within a givenWne gmriod.

IF ABOVE iNFORMATiON iS iNCORRECT, PLEASE UPDATE DiRECTLY ON IABEL

Name of person completing this form: Teiephone:

What is the best day/time to reach you at this number, if we have any questions? Day Tim

R~URN COMPLETED FORM TO: iF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTiONS, CAU: IWESTAT, iNC. Mary Jo Noiin1650 Research Bouievard 1-800-937-8281, ext. 2031Rockviiie, Maryland 20850Attention: 928112

Public repotiing burden for this collection of information is estimated to ● verage 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructionssearching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and oornpleting and reviewing the oolleotion of information. Sencomments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this oolbotion of information, including suggestions for reduoing this burden, to thU.S. Department of Education, Information Management and Complian- Division, Washington, D.C. 202024651, and to the Offioe of Managemenand Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 1 S50-0681, Washington, D.C. 20S03.

NCES Form No. 237944, 3/93

45

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

What is your teacher oetiaion status? (Chole one.)

Advanced professional oertifioation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Regular or standard state oertifioation (the standard certification offered in your state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Probationary certilioation (the initial oertifioation issued after satisfying all requirements exoept thecompletion of a probation Wriod) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Temporary, provisional, or emergenoy certification (requires additional ooursework before regularcertification can be obtained) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

What grade levels (or grade equivalent) do you ourrentty teach? (Circled thf appw.)

K12345678 9 10 11 12

How many years have you been teaching full time? @ro/ude breaks in service and any years you were Wudentteaching or substitute teaohing.) Total years teaohing Years in current school

Does your state, district, or school have a written policy on teaoher performance evaluations?

Yes No Don’t know

a. State has a written policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

b. District has a written polioy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

c. School has a written policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

Has your teaching performance been formally evaluated since you started teaohing in your current schoo~

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

If yes, how many times?

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

In what academic year were you last formally evaluated in your current school? AY 19 -

What was your teacher certification status when you were last evaluated? (Chde one.)

Advanced professional certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Probationary certikation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Regular or standard state oettifioation . . . . . . . . . . 2 T~pofw pr-on~, or emergencycdtlcdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*. 4

Was your last evaluation conducted...Yes No Yes No

a. As a regularly scheduled evaluation? . . . . . . . . 1 2 d. For merit pafi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

b. For tenure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 e. Beoause you requested ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

c. For a promotion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 f. Other (sped’y) . . . . 12

Which of the following were used in evaluating your teaching performance the last time you were evaluated?

Yes No Yes No

a. Student test scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 e. Informal observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0..... . 12

b. Teacher subject matter test scares . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 f. Student questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

c. Portfolios of pur work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 g. Viapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

d. Formally rated observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 h. Other (spdfy) . . . . 12

Who was involved in evaluating your teaching perfomwwe the last time you were evaluated?

Yes No Yes No

a. Your principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 e. A group of teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

b. Administrator at your school f. State inspector or evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2other than the principal 1 2 g. School board 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. District administrator or evaluator h. Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12from outside your school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 i. Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

d. Master teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 j. Other (speci&) . . . . . . . . . . 12

Of those persons listed in question 10a-j, who had the most important role in evaluating your teaching perform-?(Write the letter from a to j that comesponds to tie person or grOUp.)

46

MOW are as-s of teachina. In column A, indicate to what extent each aspect was considered in evaluating your12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

;eaching per&rmance the I& time you were evaluated. In column B, indicate whether each aspect should beconsidered in evaluating teaching pedormance. In column C, Indicate your perception of the competence level toevaluate each aspect of teaching possessed by the person or group who last evzduated your teaching performance.

A.Considered inlast evaluation

SmallGreat Moderate or notextent extent at ail

Overall teaching performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Subj- matter knowkdge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Classrmm management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Instructional tedmiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Test construction skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Grading methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Involving parents in the learning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

Helping each student achieve according tohis or her ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

Cooperation with other school personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Equitable treatment of students and colleagues

regardless of race, sex, economic status, etc . . . . . 1 2 3Professional development activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Teaching demands unique to the students inthe classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

Neighborhood and school problems affecting

B.Should beconsidered

Yes N o

12121212121212

1212

1212

12

c.Perception of evaluators

competenceSmall

orGreat Moderate none

3333333

33

33

3

1111111

2222222

a.b.c.d.e.f.

9“h.

i.

j.

k.L

m.

11

22

11

22

1 2

oni’s teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 11 2 11 2 3

No

2

2

2

2

2

Yee

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Werethe@eria ueedinthelast evaluation ofyour~ing@wman0e knowltoyoupriortothe ~ ~? *... ** . . . . . . . . . ..o**ooo. o.. o.oO*... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did you receive a written report of your last evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did you receive a verbal explanation of your last evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is there an appeal process for evaluations at your school? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can you submit a written response to your evaluation that beoomae paltofyow ~ fib? ‘******************

DidyouhavetttO~~ todesigna~foryour ~~-w~evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... ....

Did the information collected the last time you were evaluated provide an accurate assessment of yourteaching performance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...........

Was your last evaluation useful to you for improving your teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

2

2

Belmv are ways that teacher pedormance evaluations can be used. In column A, indicate to what extent each is anobjective in your school. in column B, indicate to what extent each should bo an objective in your school.

A. Is an objective

Great Moderate Small

B. Should bean objective

Notat all

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Notat all

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Great Moderate Smallextent

3333

3

3

33

3

extent

To guide improvement of teaching skills . . . . . . . 1

To plan inservice education activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

To discharge incompetent teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1To determine teachers’ pay levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1To help teachers focus on student

outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

To give administrators greater control overteacher job performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

To recognize and reinforce teachingexcellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

To make tenure and promotion deasions . . . . . 1

To help teachers define standards for theirpeers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

extent

2222

2

2

22

2

extent

3333

3

3

33

3

extent

1111

1

1

11

1

extent

2222

2

2

22

2

a.b.c.d.e.

f.

9.

h.i.

Please keep a copy of this questionnaire for your records. Thank you for responding.

47

.—

If you have never been fonnal~ eWWSt@ in your cwrwlt sCt700/, please answer the following opinionquestions.

22 Below are aspects of teaching. Indcate whether eaoh aspect should ba considered in evaluating teaching

performance.

Should be considered

a.b.c.d.e.f.

9.h.i.

j.

k.Lm.

Overall teaching pefirmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subject matter knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Classroom management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Instrudonal techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Test construction skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grading methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Involving parents in the learning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Helping each student achieve according to his or her ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cooperation with other school personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equitable treatment of students and colleagues regardless of race, sex,economic status, etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Professional development activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Teaching demands unique to the students in the classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Neighborhood and school problems affecting one’s teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes11111111

1

1111

No222222222

2222

23. Belowmwayethatteacher pwform-~ C8nbaueed Indicntowhat meachahouldbom -

a To guide improverne m of teaohing skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .b. Toplanineervb educatm“~.*.*e.O**Oo*o.." .."." " . . . . ..oe.o...*.*.e.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c, Todkharge incompetentteachem . . . . . ..o . . ..*** . . . . . . ..Oo...*.o . . ..o. oo . . . . ..*o*..*..*** . . . ..o*.d. Todetermhteachm’ paylevels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To hdp teachefs fOCUS On StuCht OutCGrTWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:. To give administrators greater control over teadter job @ormmce . . . . . . . . . . .9. To recognize and reinforce teaching excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .h. To make tenure and promotion decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. To help teachers define standards for their peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Moderateextent extent

1 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 2

smallextent

333333333

Notat all

444444444

Please keep a copy of this questionnaire for your recotis. Thank you for responding.

48